On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:15 PM Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch> wrote:
> 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. > I agree with the words. We'll see about the specifics. > 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. > A good thought; but, I believe, still to be determined. > 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. > I've seen too many spectra with 511 keV peaks from annihilation radiation to believe your statement unless you are talking 511.00 keV. > 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. > These rotations are from your model(s). They may or may not be consistent with other models or reality. > > 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. > Charge is a directional *E*-field. Photons are also composed of directional fields. When appropriately bound and twisted, the photon field can be uniquely inwardly and outwardly directed. The inward-directed field is concentrated and becomes your "dense EM mass." An outward-directed field has reduced field density outside the bound photon and is a "stable" field, but would still correspond to your "EM mass from radiation fields". The lepton charge is determined by whether the *E*-field is directed in or out. Charge conservation and the means of forming it depends on equal splitting of the photon fields into lepton pairs with net zero charge. This is close to my model of the photon/lepton picture: (PDF) A new linear theory of light and matter - ResearchGate <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333976356_A_new_linear_theory_of_light_and_matter> Note that the two leptons are both a torus. > 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/c2. 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. > A standing wave can be linear. I think that a torus form may be a specific EM type that is "self-bound". Both have mass; but, the linear has alternating mass (+ & -, both gravitating, but going thru zero). The EM Torus has a fixed mass (+ or -). > The emitted photon is not a radiation field. It's a particle. > I agree. But, it is composed of E&M fields and could be 1E7 cycles long! > 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. > Are evanescent or standing waves bound or unbound? > 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! *[Why do you say that?]* Further there are no point > charges. *[I agree.] *Charge is a topological effect of nested EM flux. *[I > agree.]* Are you aware that even the magnetic moment of the proton does > not generate a static field? *[Probably; but, we would need to compare > models to be sure that we mean the same thing.] *And classically one must > show a ring current for its production - what contradicts a point charge. *[I > agree.]* > > 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. > With precession and motion of internal local charges, I would expect changes in mag mom. I am concerned about the accounting of fields and potentials when frequency of motion of nuclear components approach and exceed that of the internal spin source(s). > 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). > I have to study your 3 rotation bonds. However, it (as equivalent to base vectors) may be equivalent to my concept of the electron as a photon "wrapped" around itself as thread on the surface of a ball. > You cannot produce a neutron from e/p! > Sardin's picture looks to be just that (Thx for the link). However, he could not have gotten it published, if he had called his "negative shell about a proton" an electron. > > 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! > Feynman says the Coulomb potential holds down to the nuclear region. > 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!! > I'll have to think about this. At the event horizon 3D + t becomes 1D+ 3t. The nuclear region may be approaching this changeover region with 3D + 3t. > 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 S3! 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!! > I'm looking at and for the meaning and attainment of stable near-nucleus systems. Stable mathematical solutions may be problematic or unattainable without the proper model(s). Andrew. > (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 > >
