Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
As I have pointed out before on several occasions, a continuous charge function that is in motion does not produce a far field radiation pattern. The shape apparently assumed by Mills would not radiate due to this condition, but it is not necessary for the motion of the distributed charges to be spherical. The standard d, p, s, etc. would also not radiate as long as the charge does not reside at any one point in space as it moves. An electron that acts like a point source of electric field should radiate if it accelerates such as would occur in a circular orbit. If it is instead a continuous function this would not be a problem. The best example is to look at the behavior of a DC current loop. Each tiny section of the loop will radiate in the far field as the charge associated with that point moves in a circle. But, the continuous nature of the loop allows for a balanced out far field with regard to radiation. The magnetic field does not cancel out in the same manner which would also allow a continuous electron model to have a magnetic field, but not radiate RF or other forms of electromagnetic energy. I feel that it is important to not restrict our thinking to perfect spherical orbitals since that is not necessary. Any 3 dimensional shape will work as long as the net charge is constant at every point on the surface with time. Motion of the charges is OK as long as a new one comes along to replace the one that moves out of location. Think DC current. Dave -Original Message- From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 12:28 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment There has to be a mathematical link. The amount of correctness in predicting chemical and fysical properties is just too amazing from both of them. And you claim the theories cannot be linked. E.g one of them is junk. Well mills theory is easy verified. No one have shown errors in those calculations from basic orbital and plain electrodynamics. Then QED has to be junk for more than two bodies else you have to clarify what you base your assumption of. The orbitals of the source terms are indeed spherical if I remembered correctly. But there are variations of properties on the sphere that are not spherical. If the link is some kind of transform, those orbitals could very well result. Of cause every analogy is halting. But mills is expected to explain and match all what is known and when people doesn't find their pet described they shout fool without actually trying to understand and take in all what does work, not in a complicated hard to grasp theory, but a simple and natural one, the answer of the pet question is probably a small modification, a small explanation away, that just is not in print yet. Keppler had a very simple theory of the observations, but couldn't match the very tweaked and refined through data fitting a clumpsy theory of earth centricity. He needed to spend another 10 years to match all of the known knowledge by himself. Therefore I still find the analogy good enough. But mills has a much harder task ahead. To match all corners of our quantum theory. That's stupid let PhD get some grants to help that quest. On Jun 30, 2014 12:26 AM, "Eric Walker" wrote: On Jun 29, 2014, at 14:14, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: Actually, mills theory and QED is pretty close in calculating quantities for the hydrogen's atom. They must be dual or approx. Dual. I doubt they are dual. The electron shell model says that with increasing orbital angular momentum there is a change in the shape of the orbital; e.g., the s, p and d orbitals. These orbital shapes have been incorporated into solid state physics to help explain the emergence of various orders that are observed -- superconduction, ferromagnetism, etc. To the best of my knowledge, Mills describes a single orbital shape -- the orbitsphere. If there is only the orbitsphere, solid state physicists had better go back to the drawing board. Mills's theory sounds like a radical departure from known behavior of bound electrons rather than a description that is dual. It took keppler 10 years of hard work to get his theory into acceptance. I don't think Mills's situation is analogous to that of Kepler.
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
There has to be a mathematical link. The amount of correctness in predicting chemical and fysical properties is just too amazing from both of them. And you claim the theories cannot be linked. E.g one of them is junk. Well mills theory is easy verified. No one have shown errors in those calculations from basic orbital and plain electrodynamics. Then QED has to be junk for more than two bodies else you have to clarify what you base your assumption of. The orbitals of the source terms are indeed spherical if I remembered correctly. But there are variations of properties on the sphere that are not spherical. If the link is some kind of transform, those orbitals could very well result. Of cause every analogy is halting. But mills is expected to explain and match all what is known and when people doesn't find their pet described they shout fool without actually trying to understand and take in all what does work, not in a complicated hard to grasp theory, but a simple and natural one, the answer of the pet question is probably a small modification, a small explanation away, that just is not in print yet. Keppler had a very simple theory of the observations, but couldn't match the very tweaked and refined through data fitting a clumpsy theory of earth centricity. He needed to spend another 10 years to match all of the known knowledge by himself. Therefore I still find the analogy good enough. But mills has a much harder task ahead. To match all corners of our quantum theory. That's stupid let PhD get some grants to help that quest. On Jun 30, 2014 12:26 AM, "Eric Walker" wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2014, at 14:14, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Actually, mills theory and QED is pretty close in calculating quantities > for the hydrogen's atom. They must be dual or approx. Dual. > > I doubt they are dual. The electron shell model says that with increasing > orbital angular momentum there is a change in the shape of the orbital; > e.g., the s, p and d orbitals. These orbital shapes have been incorporated > into solid state physics to help explain the emergence of various orders > that are observed -- superconduction, ferromagnetism, etc. To the best of > my knowledge, Mills describes a single orbital shape -- the orbitsphere. If > there is only the orbitsphere, solid state physicists had better go back to > the drawing board. Mills's theory sounds like a radical departure from > known behavior of bound electrons rather than a description that is dual. > > It took keppler 10 years of hard work to get his theory into acceptance. > >> >> I don't think Mills's situation is analogous to that of Kepler. >
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
> On Jun 29, 2014, at 14:14, Stefan Israelsson Tampe > wrote: > Actually, mills theory and QED is pretty close in calculating quantities for > the hydrogen's atom. They must be dual or approx. Dual. > I doubt they are dual. The electron shell model says that with increasing orbital angular momentum there is a change in the shape of the orbital; e.g., the s, p and d orbitals. These orbital shapes have been incorporated into solid state physics to help explain the emergence of various orders that are observed -- superconduction, ferromagnetism, etc. To the best of my knowledge, Mills describes a single orbital shape -- the orbitsphere. If there is only the orbitsphere, solid state physicists had better go back to the drawing board. Mills's theory sounds like a radical departure from known behavior of bound electrons rather than a description that is dual. > It took keppler 10 years of hard work to get his theory into acceptance. > I don't think Mills's situation is analogous to that of Kepler.
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
I have an idea how the push of the electron field can happen. As the proton approaches the hydrogen's there will be a flat region i the electrostatic force field in the middle. If the electron is there it would not like to curve its field but keep it flattened in order to not radiat it will not drag the whole field of the electron with it, but move the field closer to the hydrogen's nucleus. Hence the field is pushed. Wdyt? Actually, mills theory and QED is pretty close in calculating quantities for the hydrogen's atom. They must be dual or approx. Dual. It just needs to find how they link together and then all present knowledge transfers back and forth between the models. No need to jump any ship there is. Also note that mills theory is a kind of steady state theory, well at least things need to have settled so that the state is in its recurrent state. But QED tries to be a time marching theory. That is why I tout that physisist need to develop the theory further. Personally I'm trained in qm and use the intuition from there. But interpret the quantum fields to be a mathematically related to an orbitsphere and not a probability to find a particle. My interpretation of mills theory is that it is a recurrent state related to maxwells equation plus additional terms related to nonlinearities in the physics of electromagnetism. Now one can just put all these nonlinear terms in one term and call them charges. Mills then take the source terms that fit a nonradiaton condition because that is what is observed and lo and behold he gets the nonlinear part doing this trick. Now the orbitsphere might be strange but consider that it is the source terms in a second order equation. Forces is just jumping over the orbit sphere. My take on this is that the physics is that the nonlinearities works like a mirror for information at the range of the orbitsphere but the bounding is damped out as equilibrium is approached and just pure photons are seen with a node at the orbitsphere with regards to the information traveling part of the photon inside the orbitsphere. Also do not take all what mills is writing for truth. The truth is that people are usually both right and wrong, I think that you can translate Heisenberg over to mills theory qute well. A free electron according to mills has source term in space and is not in any orbitsphere if I remember correctly. If you try to dynamically fix that in a point in space surely you need the field to dynamically implode and cause movements in all direction and perhaps also all momentums as well if we neglect relativism for the moment. But I sort of agree with mills that in his theory Heisenberg's notion is of less interest. It looks like that physicist fall in the trap of demanding everything perfect and coherent before taking the effort to read up on mills theory. In stead of looking at all experiment evidences, e.g. all quantities correctly calculated. And helping out to perfect the theory. In stead they miss the elefant in the room due some artefact that with extremely high probability can be corrected if effort is put. It is all very similar to the dilemma cold fusion has with the many experimental evidences and an underdeveloped theory. It took keppler 10 years of hard work to get his theory into acceptance. Mills theory have a much longer way to travel, it is not right to ask for one man or his team to do this by himself. On Jun 29, 2014 7:38 PM, "Eric Walker" wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Anyway how to interpret the electron as a ball going around or really a >> field is not yet proved even to date. If you look at Mills theory, the >> electron is a spherical electron charge, so If he is right, and nobody has >> debunked that representation, then the field representation is more correct >> and is what I maintain is the physics, not a ball going around in circles. >> > > I don't think the present understanding of a probabilistic location for > the electron requires that it be understood as a ball orbiting the nucleus. > But as I think further about Mills's orbitsphere, I have started to wonder > how it deals with these questions: > >- If a bound electron takes the form of a thin shell of charge at a >certain distance from the center of charge (or mass) of the nucleus, how is >it possible to think of the electron either as a wave or a particle? What >is it that is oscillating? Is the wavefunction to be a trivial, constant >one? >- If we get rid of wavefunctions and particles when thinking about >bound electrons, do we also throw away the uncertainty principle? > > Here we start to get into the woods with Mills's theory. I suspect that > to fully embrace it is not unlike joining a Christian group that insists > that you cut all past ties to your family and friends. In this case, you > must replace each equation from humanity's collective study of physics that > caus
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: Anyway how to interpret the electron as a ball going around or really a > field is not yet proved even to date. If you look at Mills theory, the > electron is a spherical electron charge, so If he is right, and nobody has > debunked that representation, then the field representation is more correct > and is what I maintain is the physics, not a ball going around in circles. > I don't think the present understanding of a probabilistic location for the electron requires that it be understood as a ball orbiting the nucleus. But as I think further about Mills's orbitsphere, I have started to wonder how it deals with these questions: - If a bound electron takes the form of a thin shell of charge at a certain distance from the center of charge (or mass) of the nucleus, how is it possible to think of the electron either as a wave or a particle? What is it that is oscillating? Is the wavefunction to be a trivial, constant one? - If we get rid of wavefunctions and particles when thinking about bound electrons, do we also throw away the uncertainty principle? Here we start to get into the woods with Mills's theory. I suspect that to fully embrace it is not unlike joining a Christian group that insists that you cut all past ties to your family and friends. In this case, you must replace each equation from humanity's collective study of physics that causes trouble with some alternate explanation that goes back to Mills. It is like pulling a thread on a sweater that keeps unraveling. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/news2/news.asp?a=2870&t=today Here is some science related to the subject that concerns you. The gluon may contain magnetic properties and scientists want to build an electron ion collider to get more info on the properties to the gluon under added energy conditions. The gluon carries energy in protons and neutrons. There are a number of ways that energy can be injected into the proton for example. One of them is relativistic speed. Another way that I am interested in is magnetic energy. Knowing how gluons react when they are pumped with added energy is important in LENR, IMHO. Screening may be a excitation process related to energy addition to the gluon fields inside the proton and neutron. On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I was wondering about the higher then expected rates of fusion seen in > accelerator experiments at moderate speeds seen by researcher and explained > by electron screening. The fundamental paper Kim et all i basing his theory > on is in a sense interesting and can be a reality, but I did only see that > they manage to fit the model to the data, not really a proof of that the > model explain the phenomena, or am I wrong? What is the general thought > here have we got this result explained or is there more to do? > > My thought is the following, if the proton hit the hydrogen atom fast > enough the electron field does not adapt fast enough and I would assume > that the picture is like a bullet penetrating a shield. Here the gamov > factors explain the reaction rate. > > As the speed of the impacting proton gets slower, a mysterious effect of a > significant part of the electron will sit beside the two protons as they > approach each other and thereby screening the two fields. I was just > curious how exactly this was so. My problem is that in a sense the incoming > proton needs to push the electron field and keep it situated between them > in order to do any shielding. What is the force causing this? Essentially I > would like to peek into this physics of the system by simulating it in a > computer using QED, but I guess that we cannot do this but rely on > measurements or is it possible? anyone having a clue? > > My take on it is that we have a magnetic interaction between the electron > and proton that pushes the electron field and keeps an electric shield > between the two protons. This is an interesting picture, Now consider the > hydrino states of QED. They are unphysical, but probably they show how the > electron distribution would look like if the field was forced closer to the > proton e.g. a very high density of the field close to the visinity of the > proton > also the cost of pushing the electron field like that (at least on one > side of the proton) is energetically not so costly and unstable due to the > what the mathematics of the hydrino QED show, so although the hydrino is an > artefact, the mathematics can have a bearing. Now all this indicates that > in the collision there may also be an electron present (it wnt's to behave > like a hydrino) and hence the nuclear process that yield the helium is > different than what considered normal, it may be so that this can give a > handle to explain why neutrons are a rare event in LENR processes. A very > interesting question is what happens to this physical experiment if the > magnetics is controlled in the experiment, can one increase the rates seen > even further. > > So in all I would like to peek into this system to get clues of actual > physics, is it possible? > > Cheers! > Stefan > >
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
bare in mind that I'm really an engineer and not a physisits, I mostly poses some, as I think, interesting questions, and suggest, a bit wildly, some ideas. When it comes to Pauli principle e.g. that you cannot fit to many electrons on the same energy state, you essentially get a field separation and segments the space into particle regions. So there is a force that separates the electorns, one would think that it is the electrostatic repulsion, but is it really true, are there more to it? Spin coupling is interesting, and is included in my first mail in this series when I refered to perhaps magnetic reason. But as I understand you you suggest that the nucleous get an attraction similar to Cooper pairing, well yes perhaps, but is it that strong? Anything can happen when we don't know, we should try to model this phenomena more accurately, it's a bit more pressing than theories of everything which captures the interest of the bright mathos if you ask me. Anyway one of the mysterious about cold fusion is how the nuclear reaction manage to get rid of the excess energy without firing off a neutron, if the reaction is a three body reaction with to protons and a deallocated electron between there is room for energy mitigations I would say, also I bet that this kind of system is pretty new to the nucler reaction folks so, taking into acount the cold fusion experimental evidences I would still go for a very delicate and well directed punch where perhaps spin and so on must be absolutely rightly matched to yield a reaction. Contemplate that the experimental result about these nuclear reaction results, that is mainstream science, was (probably) done without carefully align or antialign or whatever the spin and what not, the effect can very well be 2-4 magnitudes more strong if it instead was rightly controlled. On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Stefan-- > > You suggest that Pauli may enter Kim’s idea. How do you consider that > spin coupling enters the picture? Cooper pairing is generally considered a > real physical condition. > > Bob > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe > *Sent:* Thursday, June 26, 2014 11:37 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Over fitting was my feeling when reading about Kim et al. On the other > hand if you can make use of first principles and simulate a collision that > would be great for understanding of what happens in a collision. Of cause > assuming that QED is good enough to model the electrodynamic stage of the > collision. I have on the other side never seen QED validated in a three > body example like He or such so until anyone can fill that gap I would be a > little scared even to trust QED. Of cause doing such a simulation is > probably insanely difficult, or? My problem is that I didn't get any > physical understanding reading the paper (I could follow the math) just the > usual summary statement that it is a shielding, but how? I want to > understand the physics, and if the physical understanding is not there you > can create great complex earth centric models that does not help anybody > else but professors with a head the size of a huge pumpkin, in stead of a > nice slim heliocentric model that enable some serious engineering to be > done. > > Cheers! > > On a side note, maybe the pauli principle could be the force that pushed > the electron and keep a shield, in that case orientation should be > important no? and a good continuation of those experiments is to try > varying the orientations if possible. > > Cheers! > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:22 PM, James Bowery wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < >> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The fundamental paper Kim et all i basing his theory on is in a sense >>> interesting and can be a reality, but I did only see that they manage to >>> fit the model to the data, not really a proof of that the model explain the >>> phenomena, or am I wrong? What is the general thought here have we got this >>> result explained or is there more to do? >>> >> >> When refining a model based on experiment it is obviously necessary to do >> follow up experiments to test the refined model otherwise one is merely >> engaged in the pejorative sense of "data mining" aka over-fitting. >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
Stefan-- You suggest that Pauli may enter Kim’s idea. How do you consider that spin coupling enters the picture? Cooper pairing is generally considered a real physical condition. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 11:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Over fitting was my feeling when reading about Kim et al. On the other hand if you can make use of first principles and simulate a collision that would be great for understanding of what happens in a collision. Of cause assuming that QED is good enough to model the electrodynamic stage of the collision. I have on the other side never seen QED validated in a three body example like He or such so until anyone can fill that gap I would be a little scared even to trust QED. Of cause doing such a simulation is probably insanely difficult, or? My problem is that I didn't get any physical understanding reading the paper (I could follow the math) just the usual summary statement that it is a shielding, but how? I want to understand the physics, and if the physical understanding is not there you can create great complex earth centric models that does not help anybody else but professors with a head the size of a huge pumpkin, in stead of a nice slim heliocentric model that enable some serious engineering to be done. Cheers! On a side note, maybe the pauli principle could be the force that pushed the electron and keep a shield, in that case orientation should be important no? and a good continuation of those experiments is to try varying the orientations if possible. Cheers! On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:22 PM, James Bowery wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: The fundamental paper Kim et all i basing his theory on is in a sense interesting and can be a reality, but I did only see that they manage to fit the model to the data, not really a proof of that the model explain the phenomena, or am I wrong? What is the general thought here have we got this result explained or is there more to do? When refining a model based on experiment it is obviously necessary to do follow up experiments to test the refined model otherwise one is merely engaged in the pejorative sense of "data mining" aka over-fitting.
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
Yep I also suspect that the time constant of the adaptation of the electron field is faster at the moderate speeds, but for the experiments where Gamov factors rules I suspect that the electron field cannot adapt. Anyway again theoreticians misses the elephant in the room. Physics is physics, not a mathematical play ground with fancy pancy math. If you find an interesting formula, don't rest, explain the physical consequences. Anyway how to interpret the electron as a ball going around or really a field is not yet proved even to date. If you look at Mills theory, the electron is a spherical electron charge, so If he is right, and nobody has debunked that representation, then the field representation is more correct and is what I maintain is the physics, not a ball going around in circles. /Cheers On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My thought is the following, if the proton hit the hydrogen atom fast >> enough the electron field does not adapt fast enough and I would assume >> that the picture is like a bullet penetrating a shield. Here the gamov >> factors explain the reaction rate. >> > > I suspect in the present context that it would be hard to accelerate a > proton to a velocity of the same order of magnitude as that of the > electrons buzzing around. If my understanding is correct, they see > something as massive as a proton lumbering along, barely moving, as the > bound electrons race around their nuclei many times. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: My thought is the following, if the proton hit the hydrogen atom fast > enough the electron field does not adapt fast enough and I would assume > that the picture is like a bullet penetrating a shield. Here the gamov > factors explain the reaction rate. > I suspect in the present context that it would be hard to accelerate a proton to a velocity of the same order of magnitude as that of the electrons buzzing around. If my understanding is correct, they see something as massive as a proton lumbering along, barely moving, as the bound electrons race around their nuclei many times. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
Over fitting was my feeling when reading about Kim et al. On the other hand if you can make use of first principles and simulate a collision that would be great for understanding of what happens in a collision. Of cause assuming that QED is good enough to model the electrodynamic stage of the collision. I have on the other side never seen QED validated in a three body example like He or such so until anyone can fill that gap I would be a little scared even to trust QED. Of cause doing such a simulation is probably insanely difficult, or? My problem is that I didn't get any physical understanding reading the paper (I could follow the math) just the usual summary statement that it is a shielding, but how? I want to understand the physics, and if the physical understanding is not there you can create great complex earth centric models that does not help anybody else but professors with a head the size of a huge pumpkin, in stead of a nice slim heliocentric model that enable some serious engineering to be done. Cheers! On a side note, maybe the pauli principle could be the force that pushed the electron and keep a shield, in that case orientation should be important no? and a good continuation of those experiments is to try varying the orientations if possible. Cheers! On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:22 PM, James Bowery wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The fundamental paper Kim et all i basing his theory on is in a sense >> interesting and can be a reality, but I did only see that they manage to >> fit the model to the data, not really a proof of that the model explain the >> phenomena, or am I wrong? What is the general thought here have we got this >> result explained or is there more to do? >> > > When refining a model based on experiment it is obviously necessary to do > follow up experiments to test the refined model otherwise one is merely > engaged in the pejorative sense of "data mining" aka over-fitting. >
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > The fundamental paper Kim et all i basing his theory on is in a sense > interesting and can be a reality, but I did only see that they manage to > fit the model to the data, not really a proof of that the model explain the > phenomena, or am I wrong? What is the general thought here have we got this > result explained or is there more to do? > When refining a model based on experiment it is obviously necessary to do follow up experiments to test the refined model otherwise one is merely engaged in the pejorative sense of "data mining" aka over-fitting.
