Jurg, You state "In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton." Since I believe that the proton is composed of relativistic leptons and leptons of EM fields (expressed as photons?), you have presented something that will take me time to examine. I hope to do so - eventually.
Andrew _ _ _ On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:22 PM Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch> wrote: > Andrew > > > Just one thing: > > 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. > > > In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton. In fact we > can derive the electron mass directly from the proton structure and also > the electron g-factor can be derived from the proton mass metric. The later > is very astonishing as it delivers a polygon of order 3 as a solution. If I > add the Mills-Metric (2:2) for proper space time then the precision is as > good as the measurement (12 digits done in Maple). > > All nuclear flux is mutually bound by topological charge. As the electron > gets added to the proton the flux "binding charge" is a joint production. > As you may note, there cannot be opposite charge among two different EM > flux topology as the EM mass binds (Lorenz force) not the charge. I know it > will take time to reset your brain to "nucleus internal view" as it is the > exact opposite we know from external EM theory. > > So not charge-charge defines the force - EM bound by charge is the force. > And never forget. A solution only works on a stable minimal Lagrangian > surface what a (2,3) sphere never can be. > > It's all about thinking about the proper situation. It took me at least a > year to understand it or even 3 years from the beginning - but I had to > find everything. You can take the solution and start to reason about it. > There is no doubt that the core of SOP will define the next level of basic > physics. > > J.W. > > > On 29.04.2022 05:38, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: > > > > > 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 >> >> -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
