values into Eq. (5) achieves the electron’s energy of E i % 8:19 Â 10
À14 J. For comparison, if a point particle model is used, then there is no internal structure that
connects to the electron’s Compton frequency, Compton wavelength or internal
energy. The implied infinite energy density speaks to the inadequacy of the point
particle concept.
Next, we will check if the spacetime particle model can plausibly possess
angular momentum of L ¼ h=2. If the particle model had all the wave energy
circulating at the speed of light around the circumference like a rotating hoop, then
the particle model would have angular momentum of L ¼ h. This follows from
L ¼ pr where the rotating hoop model would have p ¼ E i =c and r ¼
k c ¼ hc=E i .
However, the spacetime model has the energy more uniformly distributed
throughout the internal volume. This lowers the momentum term to p\E i =c. This
is equivalent to having a moment of inertia more like a rotating disk than a rotating
hoop. The rotation is also somewhat chaotic which also reduces the angular
momentum. The exact energy distribution has not been determined, but there is a
wide range of possibilities that can achieve L ¼ h=2. In fact, achieving this angular
momentum would become a design criteria in choosing the “correct” energy distribution. For comparison, a point particle or even a Planck length vibrating string is
physically incompatible with achieving the angular momentum requirement.
At the start of this paper the question was asked: What mechanism enforces
quantized angular momentum on a rotating CO molecule? It is common for physics
professors to explain to their students that a fundamental particle such as an electron
possess “intrinsic angular momentum” or “spin” which is QM phenomena with no
interpretation from classical mechanics. While it is impossible to see any physical
rotation of an electron, molecules possess a quantized physical rotation (quantized
angular momentum) which can be physically proven. In this model, the quantized
angular momentum of a molecule is “enforced” by the fact that the molecule is itself
made of rotating quantum of spacetime energy existing in the sea of the superfluid
spacetime field. Is it not reasonable that fundamental particles also have a physical
rotation? Saying that an electron has “spin” without physical angular momentum is
an admission that the currently accepted models of fermions are inadequate.
For comparison, the spacetime particle model does not just have angular
momentum as an added feature. Instead angular momentum is the central feature
that imparts quantization. Quantized angular momentum is the feature that distinguishes fermions and bosons from ZPE which has about 10
120 times more energy in
the universe. This proposed model offers a conceptually understandable explanation
of “spin”.
4.2 Curved Spacetime Test
The next test is to see if the spacetime particle model plausibly produces the correct
curvature of spacetime in the surrounding spacetime. According to GR, matter
Spacetime-Based Foundation of Quantum Mechanics …
227
À14 J. For comparison, if a point particle model is used, then there is no internal structure that
connects to the electron’s Compton frequency, Compton wavelength or internal
energy. The implied infinite energy density speaks to the inadequacy of the point
particle concept.
Next, we will check if the spacetime particle model can plausibly possess
angular momentum of L ¼ h=2. If the particle model had all the wave energy
circulating at the speed of light around the circumference like a rotating hoop, then
the particle model would have angular momentum of L ¼ h. This follows from
L ¼ pr where the rotating hoop model would have p ¼ E i =c and r ¼
k c ¼ hc=E i .
However, the spacetime model has the energy more uniformly distributed
throughout the internal volume. This lowers the momentum term to p\E i =c. This
is equivalent to having a moment of inertia more like a rotating disk than a rotating
hoop. The rotation is also somewhat chaotic which also reduces the angular
momentum. The exact energy distribution has not been determined, but there is a
wide range of possibilities that can achieve L ¼ h=2. In fact, achieving this angular
momentum would become a design criteria in choosing the “correct” energy distribution. For comparison, a point particle or even a Planck length vibrating string is
physically incompatible with achieving the angular momentum requirement.
At the start of this paper the question was asked: What mechanism enforces
quantized angular momentum on a rotating CO molecule? It is common for physics
professors to explain to their students that a fundamental particle such as an electron
possess “intrinsic angular momentum” or “spin” which is QM phenomena with no
interpretation from classical mechanics. While it is impossible to see any physical
rotation of an electron, molecules possess a quantized physical rotation (quantized
angular momentum) which can be physically proven. In this model, the quantized
angular momentum of a molecule is “enforced” by the fact that the molecule is itself
made of rotating quantum of spacetime energy existing in the sea of the superfluid
spacetime field. Is it not reasonable that fundamental particles also have a physical
rotation? Saying that an electron has “spin” without physical angular momentum is
an admission that the currently accepted models of fermions are inadequate.
For comparison, the spacetime particle model does not just have angular
momentum as an added feature. Instead angular momentum is the central feature
that imparts quantization. Quantized angular momentum is the feature that distinguishes fermions and bosons from ZPE which has about 10
120 times more energy in
the universe. This proposed model offers a conceptually understandable explanation
of “spin”.
4.2 Curved Spacetime Test
The next test is to see if the spacetime particle model plausibly produces the correct
curvature of spacetime in the surrounding spacetime. According to GR, matter
Spacetime-Based Foundation of Quantum Mechanics …
227