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/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.
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
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!!
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
