Andrew,
I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear that
most of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level physics
based on wrong understanding of basic physics rules.
On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
Jurg,
Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons
behind rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.
Comments below
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch> wrote:
Andrew,
I could give you a very long list. First problem: _The Dirac
equation itself is only working for fields and never for mass. _
Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand
it. Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the
point.
For me all mass is EM mass. But dense EM mass has a different topology
than EM mass from radiation fields. The Dirac equation has been
formulated based on the believe that you can convert e+/- into energy
aka waves. But the Dirac equation describes static fields only and EM
mass is equivalent only for radiation fields. So you cannot connect the
2 different forms of mass inside one equation. The other problem is that
also the symmetric Bra-Ket operator does not help as e+/- almost never
decay into 2 photons of the same mass. The 511keV photon is a very rare
exception <<<<0.01%. So all Dirac/QED formalism used is pretty
unphysical where physical means as seen in experiments.
Radiation fields do 2 rotations, where as mass does 3 (electron) or 5
proton. So any equation with one side E other mc depends on the location
(field, radiation field, dense mass e/p) used.
From my view, it doesn't make sense.I consider the electron to be a
bound photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass. Thus,
Dirac pertains.
This makes sense. But if the electrons is a bound photon you can only
use halve of the coulomb gauge as there is no charge potential. But as
said the bound electron makes 3 - not uniform rotations = 3 waves what
is not compatible with the solution for the Dirac equation.
The inclusion of the relativistic mass simply is an error made by
a mathematician with no clue of physics.
The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed from the Poincaré
equation dm= E/c^2 . But Einstein did misunderstand this
(Poincaré) conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not
for static fields. So the Einstein and later the Dirac equation
are plain nonsense. There are other more severe reasons why the
Einstein equation fails. I'm just finishing a paper about this.
I would be interested in your paper even tho I believe we may be
starting with incompatible assumptions for our models.
Do you consider standing waves to be radiation or static fields? Are
bound fields necessarily "static"? I consider photons to be self-bound
fields (solitons) that are propagating at the speed of light. However,
as such, they are emitted radiation, not radiating fields. (I have
trouble simply expressing the difference between emission and
radiation of field energy.)
A bound "standing wave" is EM mass. It's not even a wave as the mass
orbit is following the Clifford torus (CT) and only the projection into
real space makes you claim its a wave. But I use the term wave too
because people are used to it.
The emitted photon is not a radiation field. It's a particle.
A radiation field (produced by a sender) is a flux of EM mass as unbound
waves. Such a wave couples with magnetic resonance = a local wave of
same or harmonic weight.
The other problem with deep orbits is the missing force equation
that should define the limit of such an orbit.
The Dirac equation does not address the nucleus beyond a point charge.
We have been exploring the effects of the different potentials from,
and interactions with, the nucleus. These are important; but, so far,
we have not found anything to change more than the energies of the
deep orbit. I, at least, am finding some insight and, I hope, some
physical understanding of the situation.
The deep orbit models miss the explanation how "mass" is bound by the
central force. As said. There is no Coulomb force below the Bohr radius
for the bound state! Further there are no point charges. Charge is a
topological effect of nested EM flux. Are you aware that even the
magnetic moment of the proton does not generate a static field? And
classically one must show a ring current for its production - what
contradicts a point charge.
The magnetic moment vector is following the internal topological charge.
So it points never into the same direction, what caused an external
field to change at each point in space - what also contradicts the Dirac
equation assumption for a static vector potential.
Further a bound electron is neutral and behaves as EM mass =
waves. So beyond the Bohr radius you cannot use the Coulomb
formula as an orbit equivalent.
I assume that you mean the atom (including the bound electron) is
neutral. If you mean that the bound electron (in its interaction with
the nuclear Coulomb field) is uncharged EM field only, then this would
be one of our incompatible assumptions. However, I am certainly
looking at the interaction of its spin component and the electron
orbit about a proton as a possible source of such fusion in the
neutron. So we may not be that far apart.
The bound electron and proton engage in 3 rotation bonds. Each wave
coupling produces its own topological charge. This charge has a toroidal
distribution as neutron scattering experiments do show. (See Sardin on RG).
You cannot produce a neutron from e/p!
Feynman expressed the Coulomb potential as valid up to the nuclear
region. In his elementary lectures on the H atom, he did not directly
mention the relativistic aspects of it.
The coulomb potential exists down to the (SO(4) - conform) De Broglie
radius. This only holds for charged particles!
Real physics is not defined by mathematical fantasies. Look at SOP
(SO(4) physics). There is show the simple (all 10 digits exact)
solution for the e-p basic orbit energy. I also show the nature
and exact energy of the H*-H* p-p bond. All this is based on
magnetic mass resonance energies.
I am too old and too slow in my mathematics to go thru your SOP model.
Nevertheless, I _am_ interested in magnetic and resonance effects.
However, since I agree with the statement that "magnetic fields are
just relativistic effects of electrodynamics", I am not sure that I
would find a major difference from the path I am pursuing.
"Magnetic fields are just relativistic effects of electrodynamics..."
This only holds for macroscopic fields. In the nucleus its the other way
round charge is a relativistic effect of bound EM mass flux. May be you
can understand it with the wrong ring current picture for the magnetic
moment. In "reality" EM flux moves at "c" (light speed) and the "ring
current is the static topological charge". So the mass rotates and not
the current!!
Initially I too liked the idea of deep orbits, but then I did
understand that charge/Coulomb is just a secondary effect of
magnetic mass and a basic solution can never be based on it.
I am appreciative of your ability to do the math and of finding
important connections. I don't presently understand your statement
about not basing a solution on the magnetic "mass". I assume that, if
I had the time and capability of properly understanding your model I
would see your reasoning.
As said: The whole Dirac formalism is based on the idea of plane wave
solutions with complex wave symmetry. This only works for radiation
fields or simple spherical surfaces. But not even for S^3 ! But the
existence of charge should tell you that you need total (spatial)
symmetric helicity what only works with higher order tori. All is
missing in Dirac/QED solutions. Further you should read about minimal
Lagrangian surfaces, what also is a basic requirement for a stable
solution! CT is one!!
(More later)
J.W.
Andrew
_ _ _
J.W.
On 25.04.2022 16:02, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
Jurg,
I would be interested in what physical laws you think are
violated by the deep-orbit electrons. Without the Dirac
equation's "anomalous orbit" results, I don't think that we would
have looked for the relativistic effects that make the deep
orbits (and nuclear forces?) possible.
Andrew
_ _ _
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach
<ju...@datamart.ch> wrote:
I just want to remind some folks here that H*-H*, the only
existing from of dense hydrogen (besides D*-D*) has been
measured by multiple methods by Randal Mills, now some 3
years ago. Also Holmlid tried to measure the H*H* bond energy
but he did work with clusters of H* that suffer from multiple
bonds.
The deep orbit models from Vavra, Meulenberg or others are
just mathematical fantasies, that violate basic physical
laws. It's not mathematics e.g. the Dirac equation that
defines physics - its the other way round physics defines the
math that must fit.
So if you are interested in real physics check out R.Mills
paper or Holmlid.
(R.MILLS, Brilliant Light Power Shareholder_Meeting_040319 ;
BRLP_Analytical_Presentation_060419.pdf, R.Mills, p.108)
J.W.
On 23.04.2022 21:22, Jones Beene wrote:
On the possibility of "dense helium" - shall we call it the
"alpharino" ?
Helium, unlike hydrogen, will not diffuse through metals -
so long as the metal is nonporous. The first step in
densification is (probably) diffusion... but that problem
may not be the end-of-story.
Raney nickel for instance is porous enough to pass helium
and is also is catalytic - as in the hydrino world of
Randell Mills and his Rydberg values. If Va'vra is right
about helium shrinkage then a few possibilities are opened
up in the search for how that feat can be accomplished.
An interesting experiment would simply look for anomalous
heat as helium is pumped through a Raney nickel membrane.
HLV wrote:
A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist
Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624
Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that
there are a few other atoms besides hydrogen which may
'densify' : Presumably the dense version would provide
anomalous heat.
Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully
ionized “small-/Z/atoms” can form small-radius atoms...
This would create atoms, where one electron is trapped
on a small radius, effectively shielding one proton
charge of the nucleus,.."
Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the
possibility for extracting anomalous heat from Helium?
There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over
H - due to inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas
over and over ...
Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense
helium ??
I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific
radiation could play a role in forming such atoms.
Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term
depressed atom. This would compliment the term excited atom
for atoms above the ground state.
Harry
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
