[ Mechanics of the Quantum ]
Property 5 :
Hydrogen energy level ratios
from counting compressed quanta
° Author Koenraad M.L.L.Van Spaendonck © 2018
° Publication date October 2018
° ISBN 9789402182491
° Pages / Words / Graphs [excl. appendices] 11 / 3730 / 4
The problem seems to me how one can formulate statements
about a discontinuum without calling upon a continuum…
...but we still lack the mathematical structure unfortunately.
How much have I already plagued myself in this way !
Albert Einstein [1]
‘ MQ [Mechanics of the quantum]  Property 5  Hydrogen energy level ratios from counting
compressed quanta ‘ is the intellectual property of Koenraad M.L.L.Van Spaendonck.
Publishing extracts of this work is authorized only when the reference is included :
Van Spaendonck, K.M.L.L. [2018], MQ [Mechanics of the quantum] – Property 5  Hydrogen
energy level ratios from counting compressed quanta, Mol: K.M.L.L. Van Spaendonck, ISBN
9789402182491. [In addition reference to the scribd links is also possible.]
This work is published by Koenraad M.L.L. Van Spaendonck
website : www.vanspaendonck.info email : kvanspaendonck1@gmail.com
Table of contents
Preface
° ‘Mechanics of the quantum’ [MQ] versus ‘Quantum Mechanics’ [QM]
° Summarizing the properties of the MQmodel [Appendix 4]
A  Introduction and initial setup [P.1]
° Previously developed discrete model for gravity & consequences [Appendix 1]
B  Setup of MQmodel [ratio C/R=4] & Interpretation for physics [P.2]
>>> ° MQmodel graphs for energy levels 1,2,3,4,8 and 16 [Images 1,2 and 3]
° Linking to Einstein, Planck, Bohr, Rydberg, Lyman, Information Theory
C  Geometrical/mathematical derivation within the MQmodel [P.8]
° MQmodel : derived quantum size calculation and formula [Image 4]
° MQmodel  a ‘sideeffect’ [Appendix 2]
D  Conclusions [P.9]
° 6 main features & consequences derived in the current paper
E  Final remark leading to a followup paper [P.11]
Appendix 1 Also referring to page 1 [P.12]
Appendix 2 Also referring to page 8 [P.16]
Appendix 3 Also referring to page 12 [P.17]
Appendix 4 Also referring to the preface [P.18]
Appendix 5 Also referring to page 9 [P.19]
References [P.22]
Preface
‘Mechanics of the quantum’ [MQ theory] searches for the mechanical microprocesses of the individual and
collective behaviour of quanta (interpreted as building blocks of fields, mass, energy, light…) to reveal strong
causality behind the laws of physics, rather than interpreting things with probabilities.
These days, ‘mechanical’ solutions are not very fashionable in context of gaining insight in phenomena governing
the smallest scales. But then one should ask, why did we conclude that ? Why did we end up with probabilities
(but also with infinities) ? Isn’t it simply because we have no direct access to those scales from our reference
frame of scale of size ?
Whereas before this era, we could easily test or observe things to derive the laws of physics behind them. And
we could actually observe buildings blocks (e.g.) of a smaller scale at the foundation of things on a larger scale.
Or imagining, understanding and observing that random motion of particles in a fluid, resulted from collisions
with fast moving molecules (Brownian motion).
Thus fundamental physics was engaged in imagining a mechanical microprocess, and formalizing it
mathematically, to understand a larger scale phenomenon. Our investigation sofar, forces us to respect the value
and explanatory power of micromechanical features at the basis of the laws of physics. Especially due to the
extra property 5 found which links our MQmodel to the atomic realm, previously named GQGmodel in the build
up of a theory of General Quantum Gravity [See Appendix 4 for properties 14 and the associated previous paper
references].
Our reference frame from our level of scale does not allow us to interact mechanically with the smaller or
smallest scales. But that doesn’t mean that things at those scales don’t behave in ways similar to classical
mechanical processes. Involving e.g. forces acting upon whatever entities, or the principle of actionreaction, or
the principle of the path of least resistance, etc.
My work is focused on linking such processes to the laws of physics, which was a.o. induced by exact
mathematical and geometrical findings. And it will also form the basis of 3 followup papers : MQ 
Property 6  MQmodel generalizes to relativistic energy absorption ..., and MQ  Property 7 and 8 [App.4], due
to recent findings and recombination with older findings. Hence the choice for an overarching name of the
theory under development : Mechanics of the quantum : MQ.
And in particular, this research is currently done with our constructed discrete model of energy densities (using
a.o. a hybrid concept of problem solving protocols in product design and physics), from which unifying
characteristics emerged. That is, they were not fitted a priori into the model, because the model initially aimed
to be a discrete or a quantum model for a causal principle of gravity.
Further investigation of the model reveals new interesting properties. Without adding new features to the model,
or changing the initial setup in any way. There is also no curve fitting with an abundance of parameters involved
in this research.
We stay true to the original model and the original causal principle [See Appendix 1  intro], and we have done
the same for the discovery of the previous 4 properties. Thus we aim to arrive one day at a robust theory with
fewer assumptions, while explaining more. Less is more, only if less does more.
And besides, fashion often leads to ‘more of the same’, whereas we need ‘less of something different’, diversity
in problem solving techniques, different angles of approach cooperating, a transdisciplinary modus operandi. I
aim to provide one such angle, and I hope that complementary skilled people (theoretical physicists,
experimental physicists, engineers, philosophers,...) will look into this work, and extend and improve it with their
particular set of knowledge, skills and talents.
A  Introduction and initial setup
Note : The gist of it is found in the images on pages 3, 4 and 6
Previously [2, 3, 4, 5, 6] we developed a discrete model for gravity from a specific causal principle,
featuring energy densities due to a.o. quantum size differences. In ‘A new breeding ground to uncover
the discontinuum’ [6] and ‘It from compressed Bit’ [5] , we summarized a total of 4 geometrical and
mathematical observations within this model and provided interpretations for physics, within the
realm of gravity, cosmology.
Further study of the model, now reveals a link to the atomic realm, but that wasn’t supported
mathematically yet. As it turns out, the discrete jumps between energy density levels of our discrete
geometry, exactly match with the ratios between 2,8,18,32,50,… But there is more.
In our initial example [All images in APPENDIX 1, particularly 5 & 6], you can litterally count the quanta
of the 2 energy levels in the equatorial plane, giving a perfect match to those ratios.
Level 5 : n=5 results in 125 quanta
Level 5 means the radius, measured in # discrete quanta, is 5.
Within that level, we count 25 quanta on the circumference, at any radius. That’s 5 holographic layers
in the 2D plane of a 3D setup, each containing 25 quanta. Adding up all quanta  a ‘surface area’ 
consisting of discrete quanta, renders 5x25 = 125 quanta.
Level 10 : n=10 results in 500 quanta
Level 10 means the radius, measured in # discrete quanta, is 10.
Within that level, we count 50 quanta on the circumference, at any radius. That’s 10 holographic layers
in the 2D plane, each containing 50 quanta. Adding up all quanta  a ‘surface area’  consisting of
discrete quanta, renders 10x50 = 500 quanta.
Thus 500/125 = 4. And that is equal to 2x10²/2x5² = 200/50 which was the ratio to be obtained by the
formula 2n².
Note : The gist of it is found in the images on pages 3, 4 and 6
1
B  Setup MQmodel  ratio C/R=4 & Interpretation for physics
Thus I noticed in the initial model, that doubling the energy level n (from 5 to 10), will quadruple the
amount of total quanta (from 125 to 500). As it turns out, this can be generalized to the whole
geometrical model using any initial setup of any amount of quanta on the radius. In this case (counting
discrete quanta): C/R=4 (radius x4 = circumference), and consequently 4r² = surface area. And as it
turns out, this renders the exact ratios between the well known numbers of the excited hydrogen
energy levels [7]. E.g. E4 compared to E1, E3 compared to E1, E2 compared to E1 etc : 32/2, 18/8, 8/2
when you divide the amount of quanta per energy level by 2.
What is the underlying reason for this ? It is the fact that our geometry solved the Ehrenfest Paradox
differently [6] by a.o. interpreting ‘time’ in GR as a comparison of energy densities. Meaning that radius
and circumference always maintain the same ratio. If level 5 has 25 quanta on any circumference, than
level 10 will automatically have 50 quanta on any circumference (exit nonEuclidean geometry). This
implies a constant C/R for that model with a value of 5.
But if we had a setup e.g. with C/R = 4, then the constant for all energy levels would have been 4. And
this turns out to be a special case, leading not only to the exact ratios, but also to the exact numbers
2,8,18,32,50,… and even leads to the exact ratios of Ryberg formula for e.g. the Lyman series, when
setting hc to 1 and setting Rh to 1. The last observation will be elaborated on exactly, at the end.
Thus using a constant of 4 ( a ratio of 4 /1 = C/R = circumference / radius ) our count of quanta not only
litterally rolls out the exact ratios between the discrete energy levels of hydrogen, as given by the
known Bohr formula E =  13.6 eV/n². But when each pair of quanta is counted as 1, then the model
also delivers exactly the numbers 2,8,18,32,50,… And that makes sense, because initially [2  p.2327
therein] the quanta were conjectured to consist of left turning and right turning preconstituents of
mass with an expansive nature. Thus one could conjecture on pairing them up. Remark: the value 13.6
does not roll out of the model.
E1 =  13.6 eV/1² = 13.6eV and the pair count in level 1 in our model = 1x4 /2 = 2
E2 =  13.6 eV/2² = 3.4eV and the pair count in level 2 in our model = 2x8 /2 = 8
E3 =  13.6 eV/3² = 1.51111111eV and the pair count in level 3 in our model = 3x12 /2 = 18
E4 =  13.6 eV/4² = 0.85eV and the pair count in level 4 in our model = 4x16 /2 = 32
Thus E2 is 4 x less negative than E1. This equals 8 being 4 times larger than 2, from the pair count.
Thus E3 is 9 x less negative than E1. This equals 18 being 9 times larger than 2, from the pair count.
Thus E4 is 16 x less negative than E1. This equals 32 being 16 times larger than 2, from the pair count.
2
IMAGE 1 MQmodel with a constant of 4 (ratio C/R=4) – Energy density levels 1 & 2
Remark : Quantum size level 2 is twice quantum size level 1
3
IMAGE 2 MQmodel with a constant of 4 (ratio C/R=4) – Energy density levels 3 & 4
4
Thus the model litterally counts a discrete surface area by counting all quanta of a given level. But it
also features : S.A = ct x r² and C = ct x r. The discrete surface area mounts up to the energy density of
a given level.
Thus, with a constant of 4, it also rolls out the exact ratios between the maximum number of electrons
per shell in the atomic shell model, aswell as the numbers themselves, when counting in pairs. Except
we derived the numbers from litterally counting the pairs of quanta in discretely jumping energy levels,
and did so from first principles : 2,8,18,32,50,72,98,128,162, 200,…
More importantly, we interprete what the above means in relation to the Hydrogen Spectral Series,
using the Lyman Series to make our point :
Rydberg Formula for the Lyman Series
1/λ = Rh [11/n²] And setting Rh equal to 1, we obtain : 1/λ = 11/n²
The inverses of the wavelengths of the emission lines corresponding to an electron dropping from
energy levels greater n than 1, to energy level n=1, equal 1/λ = 11/n² :
n=2 : 1/λ = 3/4
n=3 : 1/λ = 8/9
n=4 : 1/λ = 15/16
In our model, we interpret the dropping of the electron to a lower energy level, as a discrete jump
from one energy density of quanta to another energy density of quanta, resulting in the expulsion
(without interpreting what ‘expelled’ means) of a photon with a certain energy level, and thus
wavelength, according to a certain ratio which we derive logically and directly from our model.
E2 counts 8 pairs of quanta
E1 counts 2 pairs of quanta
This is the only possible drop in energy density from E2 to a lower level. And 6 quanta are ‘lost’. Thus
we derive that 6 out of 8 quanta are expelled (without interpreting what ‘expelled’ means). That’s a
ratio of 3/4, exactly matching the Rydberg formula result for a drop from E2 to E1.
The next results are :
E3 counts 18 pairs of quanta.
E1 counts 2 pairs of quanta.
With a ratio of 16/18, due 16 quanta expelled. Exactly the Rydberg value of E3 to E1 : 8/9
E4 counts 32 pairs of quanta.
E1 counts 2 pairs of quanta.
With a ratio of 30/32, due 30 quanta expelled. Exactly the Rydberg value of E4 to E1 : 15/16.
5
IMAGE 3 MQmodel with a constant of 4 (ratio C/R=4) – Energy density levels 8 & 16
Remark : Quantum size level 16 is twice quantum size level 8
6
We have arrived at this from litterally looking at the model and counting the discrete quanta as they
appear and disappear from the respective energy densities. Note that our initial concept held the
assumption that quanta in a field are formed from a background (that field) consisting of pre
constituents of mass (‘empty’ space) [2].
Call it a condensation into quanta if you will, but we chose an orbiting preconstituent forming the
quantum, which can change in size according to the forces acting upon it. And it is a unified quantum:
it also represents a unit of energy and the constituent of the same field which entails the propagation
of light as momentum transfers between stationary quanta.
And that is relevant to our next observation. Interestingly, a higher energy level in the model
corresponds to smaller quanta. Their diameter, or call it length is smaller, compared to a lower energy
level. And also corresponds to more quanta within the same equatorial plane or call it surface area, in
our model. And this is a nice parallel to the fact that wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency.
The Lyman series produces increasingly lower wavelengths, corresponding to smaller lengths of the
quanta in our model, combined with higher frequencies and thus more quanta per given surface area
in our model. Which corresponds thus to a more energetic photon : E = hc/λ and E = hv. We conjecture
thus that Planck’s constant h is directly related to an intrinsic fixed amount of energy of 1 quantum in
our model, regardless of it’s size. Although the relationship is currently not determined with exactness.
And this confirms our parallel to information theory [2 – p.3 & 28 therein] & [5 – p.7 therein] & [6 –
p.6, 7 therein] , where the Pigeon Hole Theorem states that you cannot put 4 bits worth of information
into a 3 bits space, unless you decrease the size of the bits. Translating to our model : You can model
energy density differences by using a variable size or lenght of the energy units. And that conforms to
the original physical causal principle which stated that an incompressible sphere placed in a discrete
compressible fluid, requires the quanta to become smaller as they reconfigure around the sphere,
while thus occupying less space then before [6].

7
C  Geometrical & mathematical derivation in the MQmodel
This type of calculation is at the basis of the illustrations in the previous chapter B, while using all the exact same
formulas. They are completely identical to the calculation methods and equasions previously elaborated on in
‘Emergent Gravity from Discrete Geometry’ [4 – p.18 & 1415 therein] , and in the original geometry, through
sheer calculus of size increases of the quanta radialy outward, within the model, from which the mathematical
formalism of ‘an increase of the increase’ was first derived at the time [2 – p.27 & 43 therein]. At some point, I
realised that the quanta don’t increase in size from the center outward, but that they get smaller and smaller
from the outside in when we look for causality, for microdynamics at the smaller scales. This is directly due to
the placement of the center sphere in the fluid in the toy model. Just imagine this sphere, with constant density,
gaining radius. The quanta will be forced to get smaller and smaller, and will do so according to the available
space on the consecutive holographic layers around the sphere. So our calculation method, still stands:
IMAGE 4 MQmodel : derived quantum size calculation and formula, summarized 2D
Copyright 2016 K.M.L.L. Van Spaendonck
Note : There is however a sideeffect, although we certainly should not treat it as a sideeffect, its significance is unclear at
this moment : When you fit more and more quanta radially into consecutive energy levels, the overall diameter or radius
decreases. I hadn’t discovered that yet at the time as illustrated in Appendix 1 – Images 5 and 6 (Euclidean distance=ct). This
‘sideeffect’ (and the geometrical setup of Elevels 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 16) is demonstated in Appendix 2.
8
D – Conclusions
Our gravitational/cosmological toy model is also promising in the subatomic realm, a summary, in
persuit of unification. [Also see Appendix 4]
° Previous findings from the MQmodel :
The discrete model was designed to model the compression of a discrete compressible fluid of quanta,
due to the presence of an incompressible sphere, as a causal principle for gravity [Appendix 1 – p.12].
From that, we avoided a nonEuclidean model (Ehrenfest paradox solved differently by automatically
maintaining a constant ratio between radius and circumference) resulting in modeling discrete energy
levels, reinterpeting thus ‘time’ in Relativity Theory. That resulted in fact from obeying the De Broglie
matter wave constraint in our setup [2 – p.28 therein], not only tangentially, but also radially. Which
in turn was the result of respecting the quanta as physical entities (preconstituents of mass orbiting
locally, present at all points of space ~ quantum field theory) which should not overlap, but should
reposition exactly ajacent to each other on consecutive holographic layers, while adjusting there size
[ 2 – p.28 therein ].
°First we discovered [2 & 4] that the radial size evolution of these quanta always and exactly follows
Q = q (1+X)^n or q = Q/(1+X)^n, being the formula for compound intrest, interpreted as an exact
‘increase of the increase’. Thus interpreting cosmological redshift not as a sign of receeding galaxies,
but of a stationary picture with precontracted quanta, distance units, entailing an intrinsic redshift of
space. Thus leading to the illusion of an accelerated expanding universe. Instead a precontracted
universe. With Q/q 1 = redshift as a feature of space itself in a static picture. That is a bold new
interpretation, entailing a nonbigbang scenario, but a simplification avoiding all kinds of logical
question marks concerning the big bang theory, such as something arising from nothing, dark matter,
dark energy etc.
°Simultaneously, we discovered that the MQmodel shows exact compliance to Newton’s law of
graviation, aspects of EMR and of certain relativistic effects. Appendix 5 on p.19 is very important here.
°And now we discover something in support of a unifying concept, which makes our model all of a
certain more promising. As it turns out, this exact same model – without any new assumptions or any
changes or additions of any sort compared to the initial concept – rolls out the exact ratios between
the experimentally established energy levels of hydrogen excited states. This is done by an actual count
of compressed discrete quanta of energy density levels. Hence the title of the paper : Hydrogen energy
level ratios from counting compressed quanta.
9
° 6 findings in this paper, from the MQmodel : (Also see pages 2 7)
1
The MQmodel rolls out the discrete energy levels of the excited states of hydrogen. For this, we take
13.6 eV as a given, and use a constant of 4 for the ratio #quanta on circumference / #quanta on radius,
and we pair up the quanta.
2
Without that third condition, it still rolls out the ratios between the different hydrogen energy levels.
3
We link energy levels in the atom to the intensity of the gravitational field within the MQmodel
[Appendix 5].
4
How photon or energy absorbtion and emission can be interpreted straight from the MQmodel, by
deriving the link to the Lymans series from counting expelled quanta when falling from Elevel x to E
level 1 in the MQmodel.
5
We conjecture that Planck’s constant h is directly related to an intrinsic fixed amount of energy of 1
quantum in our model, regardless of it’s size, given the fact that it hides in the Rydberg unit of energy
we set equal to 1.
6
How the results were not the result of an artificial curve fitting effort, but of an extra, natural, and
exact discovery in the model. Uncovered from a well grounded previously developed model for
discrete gravity, thus supporting the contention that the MQmodel has unifying chacteristics.
10
E  Final remark leading to a followup paper
One cannot escape the observation that the above MQmodel as it stands, entails in some areas a
Newtonian limit [and in others (EMR) relativistic features]. Because otherwise the model would roll
out a generalization from Newton to GR in terms of energy absorption, with a factor of energy increase
proportional to the Lorentz factor, and its gravitational counterpart (*), instead of “ 2, 8, 18, 32, 50...
In a new paper, I will illustrate how things adapt to that Lorentz factor from Special Relativity first, from
first principles and by manual measurement/calculation.
The calculated sequence was recognized as practically identical to a phenomenon originating from a
different, already existing realm in physics. At the time I was inclined to dismiss it as a mere
coincidence, but given the results of this current paper, I concluded that a relativistic aspect was
missing now, thus in favor of that phenomenon. Hence, in a new paper, I will introduce a physical causal
link to point out the transition from the Newtonian case to the Relativistic case of energy absorption
and energy density.
On the other hand, the current MQmodel is also a hybrid because it already contains an important GR
feature with important consequences : spacial curvature around a central sphere. Thus it features a
doubling of the bending angle compared to Newtonian bending of light around heavy bodies [Appendix
3]. And thus it holds a partial generalization which leads to the formula for the illusion of an accelerated
expansion of the universe, when applied to cosmological scales [6].
That generalization follows from the fact that ‘time’ from GR is not treated as an abstract entity
orthogonal to the direction of propagation, but as an emergent feature of a physical phenomenon of
energy densities expressed with size differing, compressing quanta, which are ajacent to each other
instead of overlapping. For more info on this, please check the papers in references 2 and 6, and the
paper ‘Emergent Gravity – It from compressed Bit’ with its title embodying the concept in a nutshell
[5].
(*) : The problem of gravitational energy has a.o. been adressed in 1973 in ‘Gravitation’ by Misner, Thorn & Wheeler on p.467.
Gravitational field energy is not part of the energy momentum tensor. And at the end of Chapter 20.4 we read : ‘At issue is not the
existence of gravitational energy, but the localizability of gravitational energy’.
11
Appendix 1 [ Relating to page 1 ]
Quoting first the introduction from the previous paper [6] to inform on the context :
“ We developed an exact geometrical toy model of emergent gravity involving a physical principle of how matter
‘curves’ spacetime on the subemergent level ( The level of microscale processes taking place in space, assumed
near the Planck scale, responsable for emergent gravity [Ref.BEIK412] ).
We interpret the observed wavelengths of light as spcial features of a static precontracted universe, both close
by and at cosmological distances : As exponential expansions over space, instead of over time where the Doppler
shift corellated with the speed at which distance units of the universe expanded over time. Thus dark energy is
an illusion of the discrete quanta of a space being exponentially precontracted : Compressed ‘bits of information’
(Information density = energy density = source of field density, gravity in our concept, hence ‘It from compressed
bit’, alluding to Wheeler’s ‘It from bit’). By analogy, we also conjecture on a similar fate for dark matter (See
conclusions).
Imagine submerging an incompressible ball [°] in a fluid [°°] which is made of compressible constituents [°°°]
of equal initial largest size Q , with a smallest size q at the spherical surface of M.
[°] : ~ mass M
[°°] : ~ physical space of a finite spherically symmetric universe
[°°°] : ~ cubits or quanta which adapt their size according to the available space on a holographic layer of space
around a body M, given their intrinsic expansiveness
Which mathematically exact sizes, shapes and locations would those quanta assume around the ball, as they
are driven out of the ball volume [action] and thus each shrink in size [reaction] ?
We model this with a geometry of discrete exponentially contracting polar coordinates [Ref.IJLM]. It is
important to mention the logpolar coordinate system, because it entails a kind of discontinuum. However, it
differs significantly from our proposed coordinate system DCC (Discrete Contracting Coördinates) as explained
in APPENDIX 1.
Observing and analizing our toy model, we found 3 mathematical and geometrical surprises on ‘the laws of
physics’ in our toy universe, and provided new interpretations for old evidence [Ref.H]
[SLIDES 2,3,4,5 pages 911 : 3D conceptual setup]
Remark 1 : A mass M as an incompressible ball is a simplification. Actually it is a fixed volume filled with incompressible mass constituents.
So that a density increase – adding more mass constituents into the same volume  would place more field quanta outside the volume,
causing them to take place around the volume, and causing them to compress (See a.o. Observation 2 – p.14).
Remark 2, 3 : We assume equal amounts of radial and tangential shrinking/expanding to avoid geometrical inconsistencies and ‘gaps’ in the
discrete fluid geometry, as well as to respect the idea that the quanta are made of an orbitting ‘fieldmass’ with the orbit shape remaining
circular at all times [Ref.I : there on p.30 slide 6 & p.27 slide 3]. In our toy model, the blue sphere (e.g. earth) features far to small in size, and
the green spheres (quanta) feature far to large, for practical visual didactic purposes. But that does not cause any changes in
mathematical/geometrical correlations. “
12
IMAGE 1 & 2 [App.1] General 3D principle & 2D mathematical derivation of radial evolution
(‘Isotropical’ here means that the quanta contract in equal proportions both radially and tangentially)
13
IMAGE 3 & 4 [App.1] Equatorial 2D slice with physical causal principle
14
IMAGE 5 & 6 [App.1] Maintaining ratio of radius and circumference in a level 5 and 10 example
15
Appendix 2 : IMAGE 7 [ Relating to the end of Chapter C on page 8 ]
MQmodel  Closer inspection : sideeffect strong at lowest Elevels, weak at higher Elevels.
Remark: All calculations and geometrical constructions were performed with precision in CAD software Rhinoceros 5.0 Commercial
16
Appendix 3 IM.8 Doubling the bending angle from first principles, in MQmodel
17
Appendix 4 [ Relating to the Preface ]
In retrospect, I concluded that the work done in previous papers and in the current paper, as well as the upcoming
related papers, have one thing in common : Mechanics of the quantum as the causal feature of the emerging
properties of our MQmodel [a discrete model of energy densities with unifying characteristics] and the
interpretations for physics. Therefore we have allocated the derived emergent properties to the finished papers.
Derived MQmodel properties & associated papers
° MQ [Mechanics of the Quantum]  Property 1 
Newton’s 3rd law & g=GM/r² [App.5] , ànd a dark energy alternative at the heart of MQ.
With ‘redshift’ proportional to distance, due to quantum size proportional to distance.
[General Quantum Gravity – version 1.1] & [It from compressed Bit]
° MQ [Mechanics of the Quantum]  Property 2 
Avoiding renormalizations and infinities through counting quanta in a finite, discrete field
Connecting to the concept of Quantum Information
[Emergent Gravity from Discrete Geometry  EG from DG] & [It from compressed Bit]
° MQ [Mechanics of the Quantum]  Property 3 
Radius/circumference is constant in MQmodel, solving Ehrenfest Paradox differently
GR’s doubling of the Newtonian light bending angle straight from the MQmodel
[A new breeding ground to uncover the discontinuum] & [EG from DG]
° MQ [Mechanics of the Quantum]  Property 4 
Avoiding a nonEuclidean geometry, models ‘time’ in GR as local energy densities
Thus also finding the key for a transition from an Adslike space (slice) to dS
[General Quantum Gravity – version 1.1] & [A new breeding ground to uncover the discontinuum]
° MQ [Mechanics of the Quantum]  Property 5 
Hydrogen energy level ratios from counting compressed quanta
(Supports suspected unification of gravity with QM aspects, EMRaspects, photon emission, cosmology)
Upcoming papers
° MQ [Mechanics of the Quantum]  Property 6  QMmodel generalizes to relativistic energy absorption …
° MQ [Mechanics of the Quantum]  Property 7  QMmodel combined with … eliminates DM
° MQ [Mechanics of the Quantum]  Property 8  Electron orbitals from …
18
Appendix 5 [ Relating to Newton’s laws featuring in the MQmodel ]
In the current paper, we found a clear mechanism within the MQmodel, indicating in a mathematically exact
way, how e.g. doubling the Elevel results in quadrupling the energy density, merely by counting the quanta.
Doubling the Elevel (e.g. n=8 to n=16) also shows a size reduction of all quanta to ½ in rad. and tangent. direction.
This gives us what we need to show compliance to :
( See Images 9 and 10 on the next pages, retrieved from the 2016 ‘General Quantum Gravity  Version 1.1’ [2] )
1.The inverse square law of gravity, and this for the mass m as well as the gravitational field around M
°Field around M: Law of gravity e.g. for earth : g=GM/r² : g follows field energy density
At radius /2 , the field’s energy density goes x4 : 2x2 quanta to 4x4 quanta on a holographic layer.
And increasing M to Mx4, expells 4x the # quanta out of the Mvolume onto a given holographic layer : from 4
to 16 quanta, because the quanta will have to reduce to ½ radially and tangentially.
°Mass m in field around M: Law of gravity e.g. for earth : g=GM/r² : atom energy density follows position in field
When m is placed closer to the gravitational well (e.g. at half the radius), the locally smaller quantum size of
the gravitational field functions as the new starting value in the energy density model within the atom. It is the
perfect equivalent of a change from Elevel 16 to Elevel 8, or from Elevel 1 tot Elevel 2.
2.The inverse square law of fading light intensity
3.A relativistic aspect of the MQmodel (yes, it’s a hybrid sofar, see Chapter E on p.10) which says that a local
observer will always see the speed of light as c
°Place m at half the radius from M, and its atomic energy level will indicate the quanta having compressed to ½
radially and tangentially. Say the radial direction is the direction of motion. Our MQmodel indicated a unification
with EMR aspects from the very start, more precisely, speed of light is proportional to quantum size [6 – p.18
therein]. Hence as indicated in item 1 here, the energy density of the atom features quanta reduced to ½ the
radius.
So in relativistic wordings, this means: ‘The observer sees the speed of light unchanged’. Meaning that he still
experiences the speed of light to advance as 1 quantum size per unit of time. From his point of view nothing has
changed in that respect indeed. But ‘as seen from a distant star’, the speed of light appears to slow down e.g.
We already indicated why that is absolutely necessary in the unified field of gravity and EMR, to get the
phenomenon of light bending to work (beam front changing angle). See [6 – p.18 therein]. We also note that
Einstein supported that here : [ And Appendix 3 p.16 shows the transition to the MQmodel in a nutshell.]
In ‘Relativity  The Special & The General Theory  100th anniversary edition’ p.90, Albert Einstein says:
“ A curvature of ray of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation varies with position. ”
We indicate the validity of the equivalence principle to invoke that the above is equally valid within the context
of the effects of an accelerating mass m within a fixed gravitational potential.
19
IMAGE 9
20
IMAGE 10
21
References
[1] Excerpt from Einstein’s 1916 letter to H.W. Dällenbach :
“But you have correctly grasped the drawback that the continuum brings. If the molecular view of matter is the
correct (appropriate) one, i.e., if a part of the universe is to be represented by a finite number of moving points,
then the continuum of the present theory contains too great a manifold of possibilities. I also believe that this too
great is responsible for the fact that our present means of description miscarry with the quantum theory.
The problem seems to me how one can formulate statements about a discontinuum without calling upon a
continuum (spacetime) as an aid; the latter should be banned from the theory as a supplementary construction
not justified by the essence of the problem, which corresponds to nothing “real”. But we still lack the
mathematical structure unfortunately. How much have I already plagued myself in this way!” [Ref. by Physicist
Sabine Hossenfelder on Backreaction, under “ Einstein on the discreteness of spacetime ”]
[2] Van Spaendonck, K.M.L.L. (June 2016), General Quantum Gravity  Version 1.1, Mol: K.M.L.L. Van
Spaendonck, ISBN 9789402149999, 50 p. [Amazon]
Link for this work : https://www.scribd.com/document/343283628/GeneralQuantumGravityVersion11
June2016AuthorKLLMVanSpaendonck
[3] Van Spaendonck, K.M.L.L. (June 2016), Geometry of General Quantum Gravity features static universe with
accumulative expansion of spacial units and double deflection of light, Mol: K.M.L.L. Van Spaendonck [Amazon]
Link for this work : https://www.scribd.com/document/358588242/GeometryofGQGFeaturesStatic
UniverseWithExpansionofSpacialUnitsandDoubleDeflectionofLight
[4] Van Spaendonck, K.M.L.L. (January 2017), Emergent Gravity from Discrete Geometry [ EG from DG ], Mol:
K.M.L.L. Van Spaendonck, ISBN 9789402158601
Link for this work : https://www.scribd.com/document/343283196/EGfromDGKMLLVanSpaendonck
ISBN9789402158601PDF
[5] Van Spaendonck, K.M.L.L. (31/03/2017), It from compressed Bit – essay for the Gravity Foundation
competition, Mol: K.M.L.L. Van Spaendonck
Link for this work : https://www.scribd.com/document/349104671/EmergentGravityItFromCompressedBit
Copyright2017KoenraadMLLVanSpaendonck
[6] Van Spaendonck, K.M.L.L. (14/09/2017), A new breeding ground to uncover the discontinuum – essay for
competition ‘Space and Time after Quantum Gravity’, Mol: K.M.L.L. Van Spaendonck
Link for this work : https://www.scribd.com/document/361404451/ANewBreedingGroundtoUncoverthe
DiscontinuumKoenVanSpaendonck
[7] Discrete atomic energy levels  hydrogen
° Balmer, J.J. (1885), Annalen der Physik und Chemie, N.F. 25
° Rydberg, J.R. (1889), Den Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 23 (11)
° Bohr, N. (1913), On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules, Part II Systems Containing Only a Single Nucleus,
Philosophical Magazine 26 (153) – p.476502
22