Quantum Vacuum Sustaining Force Model by Russell Jurgensen

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your comments pointing out the similarities with your observations. (Your ideas are intriguing and I will comment on your essay soon.) It seems the idea of explaining the fundamental forces through purely electromagnetic induction force is attractive as we both seem to lean that direction.

With the dimensions, I am attempting to describe how a single potential can generate force equally in all directions to propel particle motion like a motor. So I hope the specific definition of dimensions is not too distracting.

Interesting that you mention time, as this essay also does not have a time dimension. Instead the magnitude of the single potential propels motion which then defines time.

Thank you again for your thoughts. Kind regards,

Russell

Thank you for re-posting my comment over here. You bring up a good point that may offer a surprising distinction between views of reality. Using a mechanical notion for a smallest device can be useful for visualization, but one might ask what the device itself is made from so it does not put off the problem one level deeper.

I like the theme of this essay contest because it asks us to define at least one aspect of the reality device. Is it digital or analog? Is it produced by digital processing or a continuous system?

I read your own essay with a twinkle in my eye because consciously or subconsciously you picked a fairly extreme example in the Archimedes screw as the smallest mechanical device explaining reality. Let's say, for example, everyone agrees that a bold Archimedes screw is the smallest device. Of course, none of us would think it is made out of metal or wood. It would, however, be made of something. Wouldn't that something itself have internal forces holding the screw together, keeping its shape, and making it move?

Interestingly, the same question applies to other possible smallest mechanical devices that appear in some other essays. A digital processing model would be similar because it would need something to perform the processing.

So we really need a description of how the smallest device holds together internally (or digitally processes). Once we have that description, the higher operation would hopefully be clear and its predictions could be tested.

In my essay I explore a system of forces that might occur inside a smallest device which is really not a mechanical device at all. I'm tempted to say there is nothing there, but there is something defined with a point-like center position. As forces cause motion of this something, I suppose you could say an enveloping shape appears, mostly resembling a fuzzy sphere similar to that described in some other essays. We are describing the same thing after all, which is what makes up photons, electrons, and protons.

A photon in this model could resemble an Archimedes screw as it travels, but it would not be a screw; nor would there be actual mechanical screws in space moving the photon along. The exploratory model I am proposing uses only a pure system of potentials, forces, and motion propelled from a single quantum vacuum potential. What that potential is made of also needs further definition but to me it provides a more satisfactory deep-level explanation without needing a mechanical device.

Thanks again for your comment. I'm curious what you think of this type of approach.

Kind Regards, Russell

I think I'll avail myself of FQXI's great feature of each author having a forum to write a note of clarification.

A friend who recently read my essay commented that he read it twice and then realized that the concept is going back before quantum mechanics and starting over. Especially, it is not the same quantum vacuum that is considered to produce particle pairs.

Perhaps I should have titled the essay, "The Sustaining Potential". The essay explores this potential as evenly distributed throughout space causing internal motion of photons, electrons, and protons. Internal motion then causes the behavior of atoms we see.

That there is a hidden potential throughout space is not surprising. Take a look at the common equation for gravitational potential: P = -GM/r with units of m^2/s^2.

Simply add the sustaining potential S to get P = S - GM/r which represents the remaining potential available for electromagnetic forces. It is now the derivative of this available electromagnetic potential that causes the acceleration of gravity.

The implications for the way we view everything from thermodynamics to the strong force are shocking. I invite you to read the essay again and see what you think. With so many other essays, and this one requiring some simple adjustments to deeply ingrained ideas, it may take a little effort, but it is worth it. Enjoy!

Russell Jurgensen

Dear Constantin,

I am grateful for your comments because they give me a chance to describe a few important aspects of my essay. I also appreciate your taking the time to read it and look for problems and inconsistencies. This kind of feedback is valuable and can only make an idea (if valid) better by facing them. So I admire your willingness to point things out.

1) The exploration I am attempting takes the premise that quantum mechanics provides a useful tool but does not accurately describe the internals of photons, electrons, and protons. So I am not describing quantum mechanics but an alternative which may at times seem to contradict but hopefully will ultimately explain. Of course there will be similarities because we are all trying to explore the same things. I did use "quantum vacuum" in my title which I'm sorry if it made it confusing. My post above mentions this.

This desire for a better explanation leads to questioning previously accepted ideas. The essay describes exploration of something internal to photons, electrons, and protons that is not quarks but a single undefined substance propelled by a single sustaining potential. By receiving internal sustaining acceleration from outside of itself, a photon, for example, can exhibit the long life and other properties that we see. It doesn't violate thermodynamics but it explains the reason behind it.

While quantum mechanics does not behave classically, there may be ways of looking inside particles that are suddenly classical again, but with some interesting twists. For example, acceleration, velocity, and position work as expected. It is what causes the acceleration that is interesting.

The essay proposes a single sustaining potential with units of L^2/T^2 that is spread evenly through the universe. This potential provides the internal acceleration of the undefined particle substance. The quotes you selected are describing this internal motion.

2) That is a good point that I could have references for the idea of gravity using the same mechanism as electromagnetism. It is quite a common pondering of how these forces could be unified, and Penrose in my references briefly discusses similarities on page 392. Do you have any suggestions for references in particular? I didn't intend to say that uniting the two forces is my idea, but I do think the specific mechanism proposed for how this idea would work is unique. See 4) below.

3) The conventional wisdom certainly is that the strong nuclear force is much stronger than the electromagnetic force, and that is why I think the mechanism I describe is so interesting. In exploring internal motion I see a way that electromagnetic forces can suddenly become much stronger through synchronization of their revolving fields instead of experiencing the average repulsion two protons normally have. It takes a combination of protons, electrons, and photons to achieve this synchronization. I really like this avenue of exploration so far. Again the key is the single sustaining potential that propels the particles like a motor. From outside a particle it then behaves similar to a quantum mechanics particle because as fields get out of synch they suddenly repel. From a macro view this can be predicted through probability.

4) I appreciate your comment because it gives me a chance to offer an alternatives to spacetime. I am starting to call mine the single sustaining potential. It is this potential that propels motion that we use to measure time. As it produces motion a particle develops a secondary potential in the form of electromagnetic potential. In the process of producing electromagnetic potential, the available magnitude of electromagnetic potential is reduced for other particles. Interestingly, the denominator in Newton's gravitational equation and in the Coulomb force equation are both r squared as just about everyone has noticed and wondered how they are related. See 2) above. I believe this is it. The single sustaining potential induces electromagnetic potential but the magnitude is reduced as it sustains other particles. The gradient of electromagnetic potential reduction gives the equation for gravity.

I sincerely thank you for commenting on my essay and questioning its assumptions. I would hope that every point would be critiqued if it is to withstand scrutiny. Please post any further questions or observations you have. I may not be able to respond with this much detail, but I welcome them the same.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Dear Russ,

Thank you very much for the encouragement! I have found it a fascinating project. I am refining the equations to be suitable for computer modeling. Then there is further correlation with existing data and testing against predictions. Having a definite idea of what produces particle motion is critical and I think the goal of this essay contest is to get those ideas to the surface. I'm learning from this contest and how to describe a sustaining potential with equations of motion and concrete units of measurement.

Thanks again for such fine encouragement. I also encourage you to keep defining your concept. I'll comment a bit more on your essay soon.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Dear Tommy,

Thanks for stopping in to look. I appreciated the humor in your essay a lot since it pointed out so clearly how some logic can look real but isn't. In my essay I'm seriously exploring how something very simple like a single sustaining potential, spread out evenly through space, can propel internal motion in photons, electrons, and protons. It attempts to break out of the spacetime and quantum mechanics molds in order to explain them at a deeper level without resorting to illogical constructs. That is why I thought you would be interested to scan my essay to detect lapses in logic.

It does seem to be a positive direction that people are looking for deeper reasons. As many others, I also suspect we are very close to the limits of what can be detected, but since that limit is nearly hidden it is very difficult to analyze. Just think of the effort going into this essay contest. One almost has to make an educated conjecture and work it through to its conclusion to determine if it is right or wrong. Several things can help along the way. The units in equations should follow through. I believe I am thinking on the same lines as you and others that if the math gets to where the intermediate steps have no physical correlation, it is an indicator it is losing touch. It may provide better data fitting, but provides no further insight to the reality. (Digital models are interesting but put the problem one level deeper.)

Yes, without the help of results from others, no progress could be made. I'm glad to be learning too.

By the way, do you have a link to that LHC note? With that many particles it could be tough to explain but interesting to ponder.

I enjoyed your essay so much. Humor is a trait of an observant mind, and you definitely hit some key points.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Dear Alan,

Thanks for finding that link! Very fascinating. I would want to get much more detail on the experiment like which detectors spotted the particles. Then there are a ton of other variables to analyze. This would give an idea of whether they are photons, electrons, etc. Note that no detector has actually spotted an up/down quark, gluon etc. Those particles are a theory to explain what is actually detected like photons, charged particles, and massive particles formed during collision, if I'm understanding right.

It would be fun, however, to speculate what is going on with this report. Something I am trying to understand is how the energy of a single photon can be split into lower energy photons like in the fluorescent light from rocks. At LHC, perhaps a very high energy proton releases its energy as a bunch of lower energy photons. But I'm not even sure if the flock of particles are photons or something else. If they are all photons it could explain why they don't repel or attract but why they all started off the same direction is a good question.

My exploratory model deals the the center location of particle and their interaction but still needs further definition. The main focus of the exploration is to see if a single sustaining potential can help explain things.

Overall very interesting. While some people consider LHC excessive, aren't we glad to know about some of these things to study them?

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen