Quantum gravity AND quantum charge

[mjv1121]

I have just completed my paper "On Solving The Fine Structure Constant". It is available to read and download from gsjournal.net , author name: Michael Vaicaitis

I would appreciate all and any comments.

[jjohnson]

I have downloaded and very quickly glanced through your paper. No references at the end, so it must be a 'communication' rather than a 'research paper', according to the rules for authors. A couple minor misspellings popped out. Working through the equations and understanding the gist of the paper will take more time than one quick read - looks interesting.

Jim

[mjv1121]

Thanks Jim

(misspellings?... really?. give me the details and i'll spank my proof-reader)

[mjv1121]

The basis for my "theory" is this:
The universe is empty Euclidean space, overlain with a field of quantum particles (quantums) moving at c. Gravity then an aether gravity. Furthermore, electrons are spinning discs that constantly "absorb" and then re-emit quantums at c - this is charge. So, the presence of bulk matter (electron, protons, atoms) in the field causes the effect of gravity. The spinning of electrons and protons causes charge. As such all and any interaction between bulk matter constitutes an interaction between gravity and charge.

Einstein's curved space is basically a description of a Newtonian gravity well, which is what would happen in a Le Sage type particle field. Gravity must be caused by something, magic and action at a distance is simply not acceptable. Charge cannot be assigned simply to a plus or a minus sign, it must have a physical cause. Magic and action at a distance is simply not acceptable.

The remaining part of the picture is light. Light is not "light", it is photons. When matter is in close proximity, charge directed at an electron results in a increase in quantum flux. Depending on the gravitational and charge environment of an electron, affects the quantum flux it is subject to. Electrons are made from and governed by the field and field density, and are always "attempting" to return to being field density charge emitters (1eV per second). To do so, when linear momentum or orbital momentum restrictions allow they will expel quantum mass, en masse, as photons.
Thus a photon is a "string" of quantums. The kinetic energy of a single quantum is equal to Planck's constant. Because the photon presents such a tiny cross-section it is able to travel through empty space with very little interaction with the field. An average "wavelength" visible light photon contains some 10^14 quantums, so it can travel billions of light years through the field without significant corruption. There is no need for an aether of smoke and magic for the propagation of light "waves". Michelson&Morley were not attempting to find a gravity aether they were looking for a light aether, so they could never have succeeded.

The speed of light, c, is always the value it is because photons are emitted from electrons. Electrons are spinning discs of quantums whose mass and radius alter is such a way as to keep the angular velocity at the circumference always exactly equivalent to a tangential speed of c. Even if an electron itself travels almost at c, the speed of emitted photons is still constant and remains unaffected by electron velocity, because the speed of light is a function of electron spin.



I strongly urge you to read my paper "On Solving The Fine Structure Constant" at gsjournal.net (Author name: Michael Vaicaitis). I have calculated that, alpha, the fine structure constant, is the quantum field density.

[mjv1121]

Jim,

by the way, I do regard it as a research paper. there are no references, because I made no references to previous papers. (other than classical equations and wikipedia) If you are suggesting that I should have referenced Newton than I am in error, and I offer my apologies.

[Sparky]

Michael, Here you are!...i've been busy, but did want to ask some questions...

-they will expel quantum mass, en masse, as photons.
Thus a photon is a "string" of quantums. The kinetic energy of a single quantum is equal to Planck's constant. Because the photon presents such a tiny cross-section it is able to travel through empty space with very little interaction with the field. An average "wavelength" visible light photon contains some 10^14 quantums,-

sorry, now i'm lost again....i thought you said that there was only one quantum? i thought that photons are quantums.?

[mjv1121]

The quantum field fills all of space and permeates all matter. In this respect it can be thought of as an aether. The density of the quantum field is alpha, the fine structure constant.

When objects are in proximity the field creates the effect of gravity. Thus gravity PUSHES objects together.

Electrons and protons spin, and as such they emit the quantums (QUANTUM particleS) back out into the field. This is the effect we call charge. The basic charge of an electron or proton is therefore a function of field density.

So when electrons and protons (bulk matter rather than quantum matter) are in proximity, gravity is pushing them together and charge is pushing them apart. However, when they are in proximity, they are subject not only to gravity, but also to a proportion of the charge of the other nearby electrons and/or protons. So when bulk matter is in proximity it is subject to an increased quantum flux - and so charge increases.

Electrons emit photons. This can occur by two methods: 1) the electron is struck by a photon, it absorbs the photon and re-emits a new photon. 2) The electron is subject to a sufficient quantum flux that its mass increases more quickly than it emit it as charge and so it is emitted in one big lump as a photon.

Clearly photons are capable of travelling vast distances through the quantum field. We must therefore assume that the "big lump" of quantums that form the photon has a relatively small cross-section, i.e. a string or line of quantums. Whether that string/line is one quantum in width or a thousand quantums thick is open to speculation.

You can see though that this incredibly simple model easily, elegantly and simply answers just about everything.

Electrons are bound into atoms by gravity, with charge acting to prevent gravitational coalescence. In fact the closer charged particles get to each other, the stronger the charge effect.

It has been judged by history thus far, that sub-atomic particles bound into atoms appear to be dominated by the effects of gravity. Free charged particles are still influenced by gravity, but can more easily be accelerated by the effects of charge. Thus a travelling mass of "charged" particles constitutes a structure capable of being accelerated, rapidly forming travelling magnetic fields and emitting photons - behold a plasma discharge. Also, electrons accelerated to very high speeds are subject to a greatly increased quantum flux due to their motion through the field. The increase in quantum mass is so rapid at high speeds that the electrons emit x-rays and even gamma photons, i.e.very massive photons.

[Sparky]

Michael, thank you...I think i understand the general jest of what you are saying. There are some things that i find confusing, but maybe those will work themselves out as i continue to learn about the quantum level. I don't do math, so that is a problem.

I don't hold to any particular theory, so i try to compare what little i do know of a few perspectives. Miles Mathis, as do you, is explaining the atomic level as a mechanical model. I like the idea of the mechanical model, though i find it difficult to visualize the combined spins that make up Miles' particles.

Can i get your opinions on a few specific things that Miles says?
And how your theory differs in those respects?

http://milesmathis.com/quantumg.html

-the speed of the proton’s surface relative to its radius is the same as the speed of the Earth’s surface relative to its radius, at any given time.

Does this sound correct; is his train of logic sound, scaling down from the size of the moon and earth to the atomic level?
Anyway, if this is true, i find it remarkable!

And do you calculate gravity as an acceleration as Miles does?
Or is it pretty much accepted math to treat gravity as an acceleration?...thank you.

[mjv1121]

Miles accounts for gravity as an "expansion field" - the whole universe is expanding outwards - you do not fall onto a planets surface, the planets surface expand outwards towards you. He has taken gravity as an acceleration (he likes acceleration) that generates a force, rather than a force that generates an acceleration. Mathematically consistent and utterly mad - a shame really. Even if you were to accept the expansion of matter, you also need to accept the expansion of empty space. Miles criticises Einstein's use of curved empty space and then gives structure to empty space in his solution.

Gravity is a force that generates an acceleration.

Something MUST cause the effect of gravity. However, we cannot see the cause, nor can we build machines/devices that can detect it. Obviously, we can detect the effect of gravity, but not the cause.

We can build mathematically equations/models that describe the effects of gravity. Newton's equations are a very accurate representation of what actually happens in most circumstances, although it appears to have some limitations, precession being the most well known. My maths is insufficient to deal with Einstein's field equations, but for the most part they produce the same results as Newton and also go some way to predicting precession, but not accurately.

A quantum particle field would quite obviously be invisible to us and also to any devices built from atoms. But, gravity must be caused by something.

Charge (charge, magnetic fields, electricity) cannot be caused by nothing, it must be caused by a physical mechanism. That we cannot see that mechanism does not mean that it does not exist.

There can be NO ACTION AT A DISTANCE, it is simply not allowed. There is simply no choice to make or opinion to hold - gravity and charge MUST be caused by something, they CANNOT be caused by NOTHING. You can argue at length about the nature of the "something(s)", but there is absolutely no argument that can be made against the existence of some form of physical cause.

[Sparky]

Michael, thank you....what you say makes sense...

I have always had an uneasy feeling about "expanding space", and do so with gravity as an acceleration.

My maths - go some way to predicting precession, but not accurately.

what would account for any inaccuracy? variations in charge field that can not be predicted?

thank you...

[mjv1121]

One must assume that, due to the accuracy of Newton's gravity equations, that the effects of planetary charge fields are already included in the equations - perhaps by G. However, the relative positions of the planets and the effects of their charge fields on other planets, would require a detailed analysis of the orbits of each planet and the effect it has on other orbiting bodies, predictable or not. That is to say, Newton's gravitational equations provide an accurate description of the local gravity well, and a good approximation of orbital behaviour. I cannot speak with any authority on Einstein's field equations with regard to precession prediction. Funnily enough, it was searching for information on the precession of Mercury, that first lead me to Miles Mathis. As I remember his analysis of Einstein's maths was fairly critical. (I may be wrong, but I get the impression that Miles' background is more maths than science based - flawed genius or complete loon, I'd love to spend a evening or two chatting with him over a bottle or two of wine or a few beers.)
You also mentioned his stacked spins, which again, cannot have any physical reality.

The most important thing to remember when considering physical reality is that action/force at a distance is not allowed.

The main and most damning fault of luminiferous aether theories of light propagation is that they fail to account for gravity and charge. Of course, Maxwell's repeated mutual generation of magnetic and electric fields (apparently supported by the Thunderbolts EU Draft) is clearly bogus. Quite apart from anything else there is no given cause for the fields. Humans do love their waves - although other Earthly waves do not have energies of 10^-20J and are not require to travel hundreds of light-years. Light is not a wave - to develope a light wave theory, you need to want a given outcome - light is our interpretation of photon particles - the only images that we see are created inside our brains.

[Sparky]

One must assume that, due to the accuracy of Newton's gravity equations, that the effects of planetary charge fields are already included in the equations - perhaps by G.

thank you, Miles claims to have proven that, but uses G as some sort of "scaling" term..
@ http://milesmathis.com/photon.html

I have shown that the universal gravitational constant in Newton’s equation is actually a scaling constant between the photon and the hydrogen atom or proton. Newton’s equation contains the E/M field, hidden by the un-mechanical variables. G acts as a scaling constant between the gravitational field in the equation and the E/M field in the equation.

In this paper of his he claims to find some remarkable consistencies....i see the numbers but am not sure how he gets to them...

-it was searching for information on the precession of Mercury, that first lead me to Miles Mathis.

do you agree with his perspective of precession?

The most important thing to remember when considering physical reality is that action/force at a distance is not allowed.

Not sure what distance you are referring to. Galaxies are held together by something which seems to bind toward the center, and those are quite large. And standard model physicists claim that gravity is felt from far distant galaxies, which i find difficult to believe.

Maxwell's repeated mutual generation of magnetic and electric fields (apparently supported by the Thunderbolts EU Draft) is clearly bogus. Quite apart from anything else there is no given cause for the fields.

again, Miles says,

I have always insisted on a mechanical explanation. I do not allow dodges into field lines or pluses and minuses.

@ http://www.milesmathis.com/magnet.html then goes on to say that magnetism is photon spin??...so he agrees with you about "fields"....what do you think of his explanation of magnetism? Or, what do you think the mechanical explanation of fields would be?

I'd love to spend a evening or two chatting with him over a bottle or two of wine or a few beers.)

You are both interesting people, and i would like to set to one side, watching you two exchange ideas...I envision that you two would have to stand at a large chalk board to express yourselves mathematically....

thank you.....

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

can't comment much further on Miles Mathis without re-reading his papers, which will take awhile.

When I say NO ACTION AT A DISTANCE, what I mean is that force is the act of collision, so ANY force MUST be the result of physical contact. Action at a distance is seen by many to be resolved by using the description "force field" (as in gravity field, magnetic field, charge). You should very easily see that in this respect the use of the term "field" is not an answer. You could argue that it is a place-holder pending further discovery, or you could say that it has become an excuse for not providing an answer (similar to mass causes the curving of empty space and the effect of gravity - Mass And Gravity Is Curved). Force must be caused by an agent. That we are unable to detect that agent is not proof of its non-existence. The fact that the force is detected is, in fact, proof that a physical agent is operating. There is only one route to achieve action/force at a distance: MAGIC. I do not believe in magic, I do believe in ignorance.

Gravity must be caused by a particle field.
Magnetism/Charge must be caused by a physical process.
There is no alternative.

[Sparky]

That we are unable to detect that agent is not proof of its non-existence.

Logical.

The fact that the force is detected is, in fact, proof that a physical agent is operating.

Michael, i agree that if this is a mechanical universe, then force at a distance must be transported by mechanical means. Though there is not yet absolute proof that this is a purely mechanical universe. But that is metaphysics, fraught with even more wild speculation than physics.

Also, It seems that "field" could be a field of mechanical activity, such as Miles defines magnetic field.

It is gawd awlful hot outside, so i need to distract myself, if you will indulge my delusions of ignorance?
@ http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia :

Tesla's_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity
Here come into play the "tubes of force" (Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, J.J. Thomson) that - due to independent charge ratio depending on density and electrical content - are absorbed by bodies and impart a downward momentum (thus "gravity" is a downward push, not a pull) creating the sensation of a "gravity field". It is the interaction between the electrical content of every "dynamic" body with aether carriers (comprising tubes of force) that results in momentum being imparted to a body (an electromagnetic to mechanical interconversion).

How does one interpret Tesla's language? If we try to impose our own understanding onto what he says, without tolerance for his "time and place" and his education, then we may miss some important point within what we may otherwise consider advanced but simplistic observations.

Thus, I focus on the apparent "acceleration" of Einstein and Mathis that may be the source of gravity. I ask myself what would appear as acceleration, thus, gravity. And Tesla's "downward push" would appear as acceleration. But what is it?

thank you

[mjv1121]

Sparky wrote

How does one interpret Tesla's language? If we try to impose our own understanding onto what he says, without tolerance for his "time and place" and his education, then we may miss some important point within what we may otherwise consider advanced but simplistic observations.

Wise indeed - I'll try to incorporate it into my mindset - thanks