Harry,
This is why I keep pushing the "suppressed environment" as key to the riddle - 
it isn't the spatial acceleration of the electron or atom but rather the region 
of space time that they are migrating thru - the Casimir geometry forms a 
gravity warp where virtual particle pairs are excluded - meaning the region is 
equivalent to being at the top of a gravity well relative to us outside the 
cavity and therefore it is us outside the well that appear to exist in slow 
time just as we would see the paradox twin to exist approaching an event 
horizon.. the same sort of equivalent acceleration is occurring inside the 
lattice where Casimir geometry forms but it is negative which begs the question 
where does mass grow larger.. since the negatively accelerated atom is 
equivalent to the stationary observer and we outside the cavity are equivalent 
to the relativistic twin maybe the mass is added to the quantum geometry of the 
lattice that is actually causing the suppression?
Fran

From: H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 2:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

A hydrogen atom H is an atom because the motion of the electron is bound to the 
proton. If the electron's motion were not bound by the proton, the electron and 
proton would not form an "atom" since the electron's motion would allow it to 
escape the "potential well" of the proton.
In a classical mechanical system the orbital radius of a bound electron can be 
arbitrarily large as long as the kinetic energy of the electron can be 
arbitrarily small. In a quantum mechanical system if an electron has an 
arbitrarily small kinetic energy then the uncertainty in its position becomes 
arbitrarily large and that would increase the probability that the electron 
could escape the potential well of the proton by "tunneling" beyond it. Or is 
it impossible for a bound electron to free itself?

harry


On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM, David Roberson 
<dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:
That is right Harry.  Nobody cares about how big it can be. :-)

Actually, the integer orbitspheres of Mills include all integer values which is 
like the quantum theory as I understand.  Practical values are limited by how 
easy it is to ionize the big atoms at an integer value that is far less than 
infinity.

This subject is one that surprises me in at least one major way.  Mills 
predicts the atom size as being proportional to the integer directly while 
quantum physics suggests that it varies as the square.  This is a huge 
difference and I can not imagine why the correct rule has not been clearly 
established.  How could an atom be 10 times larger(int =10) in one calculation 
than the next without being obvious?

Perhaps this discrepancy has been shown and I am not aware.  Does anyone know 
of an accurate measurement for an excited hydrogen diameter that supports one 
of these theories?

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 5:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

While people debate how small a hydrogen atom can be, there seems to be no 
debate about how big a hydrogen atom can be.

Harry

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM, David Roberson 
<dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:
I guess that is what it boils down to Eric.  I would much rather have the 
series continue indefinitely as I have been discussing.  i.e. 
(1/2,1/3,...1/137,1/138...1/infinity)  which would blend nicely with the other 
integer portion that we all assume is real.  If the total series is found to be 
valid, then there is no special consideration needed for the 1/137 term.

But, we must abide by natural laws and most times they do not care what we 
prefer. :(

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery 
<jabow...@gmail.com<mailto:jabow...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The theory is a photon like zitterbewegung model describing states that retain 
locality in phase space with circular cycles of a trapped photon representing 
the usual eigenstates.  The Maxwell quanta hbar(c) becomes a classical angular 
momentum quanta in phase space with quantum number 137 attached.

Ah, gotcha.  Thank you.  Hence also the electron "becoming a photon" as it 
approaches the lowest level.

Now we have to decide whether we can live with a series { 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ..., 
1/136, alpha(N) }.  (Or something like that.)

Eric



Reply via email to