In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:11:59 -0900: Hi, [snip] >> This may not be a "change" in it's nature at all. It may *be* it's >> nature. > > >By change in nature I mean that free electrons and electrons in >ordinary orbitals don't act like that. What changes their nature >into some new folded dimension type thing when they are in hydrino >orbit spheres?
Perhaps I should have been more clear. Mills Hydrino orbitals are all "S" orbitals. The contention is that even ordinary S orbitals are like this. [snip] >This all assumes no radiation is possible, which I agree is not a >necessarily bad assumption because ordinary orbital electrons do not >radiate despite their large acceleration, and the mechanism for >preventing that radiation is I think a matter of contention in >conventional physics. > > >> Eventually, it reaches the speed of light, and this happens before >> the radius of the nucleus is reached. The latter is Mills' ultimate >> barrier to >> shrinkage. Furthermore shrinkage is not possible under EM radiation >> (and hence >> can't be spontaneous). > > >OK, this I think I understand because the velocity and thus >acceleration remain bounded while the mass and thus centrifugal force >must increase upon taking on more energy, thus the radius must There is no "extra" energy, only conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy (analogous to the conversion of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy as a satellite reenters the Earth's atmosphere). >increase to accommodate the extra energy, and thus more energy can >not be obtained from further radius shrinkage. No, as potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, the velocity increases (while the radius decreases), which according to Einstein should result in a mass increase as the speed of light is approached, something which I *think* Mills tends to sweep under the rug a bit (or perhaps I haven't studied his work closely enough). In my own version of his theory, this is explicitly taken into account. I.e. the total change in energy of the system is properly accounted for (including change in mass). >Do you know what Mills >gives as a smallest radius? Yes the Bohr Radius (BR) times the fine structure constant is the lower limit, although because the inverse of the fine structure constant is not an integer, the actual lowest orbital is thus the BR / 137 (~= 386 fm). (In my version the radius goes as 1/p^2 rather than 1/p, and hence the lowest radius would be BR/(125^2 ) ~= 3.4 fm. - the factor of 125 iso 137 is due to both relativistic considerations, and the assumption that potential energy is another name for rest-mass, IOW as potential energy is lost, the rest-mass of the system is reduced). I might add that AFAIK for all Mills' Hydrinos (irrespective of size), the De Broglie wavelength of the electron is exactly one Hydrino circumference, just as it is in the normal Hydrogen atom ground state. In fact the normal Hydrogen atom ground state can be seen as the top level Hydrino. [snip] >> Because the surface is curved upon itself, infinite distance is >> available in a >> finite space. (Think hamster in treadmill). > > >Yes but the surface still exists in 3D space, so Heisenberg should >apply, Heisenberg may apply, but you have to be exact in applying it. Even on the surface of a sphere, motion is possible in all three dimensions, just not all at once at each point. The De Broglie wave of a particle always propagates along its momentum vector, therefore always in only one direction at any given moment in time. If the path is circular, then it ends up interfering with itself, and hence only those radii are possible where constructive interference occurs. This is precisely what De Broglie was on about. >unless this new space is a newly formed special mini-universe >where ordinary rules don't apply. I suppose that is possible, but it >certainly stretches the imagination! Somewhat more than I intended I'm afraid! Perhaps I shouldn't have been so grandiose in my use of language. No "new" space was intended, though a curvature in ordinary space time is not out of the question. If the Earth follows a curved path around the Sun because gravity warps space-time, then perhaps an electron follows a curved path around a nucleus because charge warps space time even more strongly than gravity??? :) (...and to carry it to it's ultimate conclusion, perhaps gravity itself is really just a "left-over" charge imbalance - the umpteenth term in a Taylor series describing the origin of charge itself?) [snip] >> In the "ground state" of the Hydrogen atom, the nucleus is already >> well within >> the De Broglie wavelength, which = 2*Pi*r. However the direction of >> the De >> Broglie wave is along the momentum vector, > >This is the part I find hard to understand. This is essentially a >longitudinal de Broglie wave. No, just my poor self expression. When I say "the direction of the wave" I really mean its propagation direction. The wave itself could still be either transverse or longitudinal. >Two slit interference, for example, is >due to the radial extension of matter waves. BTW just to muddy the waters a little, there is a New Zealander who contends that it is actually due to waves induced in the material separating the two slits. :) I suspect this could be tested by using a separator constructed of 3 overlapping separate pieces rather than one piece. That should prevent any wave from propagating through the material from one slit to the other. BTW2 It occurs to me that there may also be another simpler explanation for two slit experiments involving photons (or electrons) i.e. detector memory. Suppose that when a photon interacts with an atom, it at least alters the phase of the atoms electron(s). The electron then retains this changed phase until a second photon comes along, and the chances of the second photon being absorbed, will depend upon the phase relationship between the photon and the electron in the atom, IOW it indirectly depends upon the phase relationship with the previous photon. This explanation "undoes" what experimenters have tried to do by using very low light levels i.e. "individual" photons. It also obviates the need for many of the convoluted and more far fetched versions of quantum theory. (It may also agree with/explain the method of operation of lasers, in which synchronization appears to occur between atomic electrons and photons). >Two pinhole >interference works as well, so the lateral extension exists in all >radial directions. As I said, transverse waves are not ruled out. > > >> which in a Hydrino is tangential, not >> radial, and hence has nothing to do with the nucleus. In short, it >> is not the >> HUP which prevents the H atom from collapsing. It is other factors, >> and under >> the right circumstances it can be made to collapse, though cannot >> do this >> spontaneously (i.e. through EM radiation). >> BTW, if my version of Mills' theory is correct, then the primary >> reason for the >> latter is that it doesn't have enough angular momentum to create a >> circularly >> polarized photon. > > >A circularly polarized photon is merely one in which its spin is >oriented longitudinally. Circularly polarized photons still exhibit >two slit interference, don't they? Being circularly polarized does >not make the de Broglie wave longitudinal AFAIK. See above. I mentioned circularly polarized photons, not because of the orientation of the spin, but because they *have* spin (a plane wave doesn't AFAIK). >Now I think about >it, I do have to wonder about the possibility of ordinary >polarization though. If an electron can be polarized, like photons, >then the de Broglie wave could indeed vibrate tangentially, and thus, >assuming some mechanism exists to keep that plane tangential, then >the de Broglie wave could indeed be imbedded into a spherical surface. I believe we may now have a "meeting of minds". A "non Millsian?" alternative, is that the electron is a circularly polarized photon that is wrapped around till it connects with it's own tail, like a slinky with the ends joined together. This is the model adopted by Wladimir Guglinski and also I think by "Millenium Twain" (who I suspect is a former (or current :) member of Vortex). It might also suffice to describe a single "hoop" in Mills' theory. BTW if space is really a fluid aether, then all particles are really just different rotational/vibrational modes (and combinations) of that aether. I guess this is what string theory is really all about. [snip] >> Actually I think it just says that as the position of the particle >> is confined, >> then the uncertainty in the value of the energy measured increases. > >Yes, but the range of energy observed upon sampling therefore also >increases, as does the boundary pressure. The increase in >uncertainty has profound effects when the dimensions are very small. However, I think this is only the case where the De Broglie waves are free to interact, e.g. as in a plasma, where the paths of the particles are random. > > >> However my >> point is that in the direction in which it is traveling, the >> particle is not >> confined at all (the hamster can run till it gets tired). Hence the >> energy can >> be measured with a precision only determined by the instrumentation >> and >> environment, and not limited by the HUP. > >This is a very strange notion to me that the de Broglie wave is or >can be less than 3 dimensional. See above. >If it could be longitudinal only, >then interference as we know it could not exist. (I assume here that you are talking about the two slit experiment again). If the interference only actually occurs at the detector, then it wouldn't make any difference, i.e. interference occurs when waves from two different directions arrive at the same point at the same time, and the net result is a consequence of the phase difference between the two arriving waves. It makes no difference if the waves are longitudinal or transverse in nature. (IOW the two slit experiment should work just as well for sound waves, which are of course longitudinal). [snip] >> It isn't the "force" created by the HUP that is overcome when a >> star collapses >> to a neutron star. There is no such HUP force (see above). I may have been too hasty in this statement. > >Yes, I simply made a mistake above when referring to "orbitals". I >think it is still the same effect though that prevents stars from >collapsing, i.e. the Zitterbewegung. It is the force that underpins >both the Pauli exclusion principle, and orbital formation. It >prevents the collapse of plasma as well as atoms. It may prevent the collapse of a plasma, though I don't think it is responsible for preventing the collapse of atoms. BTW it may not even be responsible for preventing the collapse of a plasma. For a charged particle in a plasma, the distribution of attractive and repulsive forces around it's location is almost equal, resulting in very little net force on the particle. Simple collisions between particles will also increase as a plasma is compressed, automatically increasing pressure. >There indeed is >such a force. It is the force that both provides and results from >increased momentum of confined particles, and thus the pressure that >results from that confinement. See: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter ...but it assumes that the De Broglie waves are free to interact. If they are embedded in an atomic orbital then they don't interact with one another until such time as the orbitals interact with an external particle. > >That article seems to be evolving considerably. > >I think that behind that increase in momentum and pressure of >confined particles is a necessary increase in latent kinetic energy. >Momentum and energy are firmly related, so It seems to me that you >can't have one without the other, though some might disagree because >this means the vacuum can be a source of unlimited energy. Surely, if the degeneracy creates an additional pressure that must be overcome in doing the compression, then the compressing force must do extra work during the compression, and it would be this extra work which would provide the additional kinetic energy? [snip] >>> It seems to me that if stable hydrino orbitals >>> were available, then stars could gradually shrink, at least to the >>> size corresponding to all atoms being the smallest hydrino, without >>> producing supernovas. >> >> The interiors of stars are so hot that most H exists as plasma, not >> as atoms, >> hence few Hydrinos. Furthermore, as already pointed out above, >> there are other >> reasons why shrinkage doesn't take place rapidly. > >I think supernovas involve a very rapid shrinkage. Maybe I don't >understand what you are saying here. I assume this is probably due to >my error above regarding orbitals in stars. Apparently within a period of hours to days (based upon my recollection of the reactions of astronomers). When I said "shrinkage doesn't take place rapidly", I was referring to Hydrino shrinkage, not stellar shrinkage. A dense star comprising primarily Hydrinos is unlikely to exist I think for two reasons: 1) Hydrinos can really only form in a thin layer near the surface of stars, hence the percentage of the star mass available to form Hydrinos is small, and consequently it would take a long time to convert the star mass into Hydrinos. 2) Hydrino formation would likely result in an increase in fusion rate, hence most hydrinos are likely to fuse not long after formation. That means they don't really get a chance to accumulate. At least not in the star. They may dissipate on the stellar wind, and accumulate in inter-stellar space, where BTW they would be largely invisible, as they don't interact with light. An obvious candidate for dark matter. If such a star were to form, it would IMO be a very likely candidate for a rapid, all encompassing fusion reaction, IOW a nova or supernova. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
