| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Electromagnetic Forum » It was only photons that filled the nearly nothing
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Chris |
 Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
New Electricity
Magnetic Field Due to Current
The model proposed by Maxwell that relies on the current loop and is worked
out by Gauss an example of fluid mechanics (to make the mathematics
beautiful and easy), and is based around the Pythagorean philosophy of
perfection is not only just a bit out by completely wrong based on the wrong
principles. The correct answer is by using the concept of 4 -perspective
with virtual photons emanating from individual electrons drifting through
the fixed positive charges in a conductor. The relative movement of the
charges makes an electrostatic force between current carrying conductors. I
the case of alternating current the real photons emitted by the electrons as
the change from one velocity to the next in the particle in a box ladder
(quantum mechanics) interact with the electrons around them to cause them to
change energy according to the rules of quantum mechanics. This gives rise
to a calculation (integration round the loop) that shows that another
current loop inside has a force of compression on it and a net force that
tend to move it to a position symmetrical about the axis. The force is
higher near the current loop and drops towards the axis. Measurements
support this. Since a solenoid is a series of loop this is true for these
too.
The model of flux flowing through a loop of current is the concept that is
wrong. The mathematics the gauss used is correct it is the physics that is
wrong.
Relativity - Affine Geometry?
Abstract:
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity in a relatively
unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper written in 1918, in the form of a
dialogue between a critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook
versions of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special relativistic
time dilation was symmetric for the twins, and he had to invoke,
asymmetrically, the general relativistic gravitational time dilation during
the brief periods of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to simultaneity or
Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss Einstein's resolution and several
conceptual issues that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution
using gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and physical flaws,
and gives incorrect answers in a general setting. The counter examples imply
the need to reconsider many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and resolutions is traced to the
fact that the special relativity principle formulated originally for physics
in empty space is not valid in the matter-filled universe. Einstein's
special theory of relativity is about measurements between frames of
reference in a state of non acceleration. It is an observation that the
velocity of light is independent of the relative velocity between observer
and the source. From this Lorenz postulated a length contraction to allow
for this. Einstein derived the same equation from the observations. If you
look at this equation there is no special frame so any frame may be taken as
the reference frame. Let us consider the passage of mesons from the origin
in the upper atmosphere to their arrival at a counter on the earth's
surface. The observer "sees" the origin from his frame and since he is
"looking" at the meson then this point is only a few feet above the
laboratory roof because of the Lorenz contraction thus accounting for the
short passage time. The "meson" "sees" the path it travels from the upper
atmosphere to the surface as the same few feet as it is "looking" at the
observer's reference frame.
It seems to me that there is no real contraction, only an effect similar to
perspective as a result of the way light travels and is only an appearance.
Relativity is 4-space perspective. This would mean that a journey in a very
fast space craft to a nearby solar system (say 10 light years) would take a
time given after the length contraction and time contraction had been
allowed for. (This is called the 4-velocity) I suggest that the 4-velocity
is the "real" velocity and what we see is the result of 4-space perspective
V=v/sqr(1-(v/c)^2) V is the 4-velocity and the velocity in all frames. It
would therefore be possible for deep space journeys with a fast spacecraft
in normal time spans. (By fast I mean velocities close to that of light -
say closer than 99%c). It also strikes me that since all frames are
equivalent the "Twin Paradox" does not occur the two brothers will agree
both about the time and distance travelled.
Since perspective is the projection of 3-space to 2-space then relativity is
the projection of 4-space to 3-space.
So even the man himself admitted his idea had been misinterpreted by his
followers. The general theory relativity that deals with acceleration does
not map well into special relativity because the forces on the objects do
not influence signal exchanges in any way.
If you think of the star ship journey in terms of a two dimensional space
time diagram (other massive objects are too far away to be of any influence)
then you have a hill. Now in normal hills the distance over the hill is
longer than the distance along the flat, but in the relativity case the
distance over the hill is shorter than the flat because it is a negative
hill.
That is because one of the dimensions is jct and the other is x now using
Pythagoras the hypotenuse for this negative hill, which is really just a
wobbly 'v' is 2*( x^2-(ct)^2)^0.5 and that is less than 2x. This is because
we are in hyperspace. x is the "rest" distance and "t" is the time
calculated at the x/v where v is the velocity. So the distance travelled is
2*(x^2-(c(x/v))^2)^0.5. and that takes (that distance)/v in real time.
The precise shape of the curve only means we need to do an integration along
the curve VIS differential geometry, I get it now, with my brand new brain,
fitted after they took out my old one a couple of months ago.
Get it! So space travel is really very easy you just have to fast enough.
"The faster you go, the quicker you get there" just like running a race!
I didn't win!
My understanding of special relativity is limited. However my opinion is
that the contraction effects are a 4-perspective effect due to the constancy
of the velocity of light, there is no physical contraction at all.
My mind forms a concept of a ^ shaped hill of the space-time trajectory of a
return particle path where the path over the hill is shorter that the path
taken at rest or very slowly, so the higher the velocity the shorter the
path over the hill. It is a metric space.
The other related point is the relativistic momentum now since the path
depends on the velocity then there is the notion of a real or true velocity
v/gamma. In the momentum of a particle the momentum as measured by collision
is m v/gamma so as the velocity increases the mass remains the same.
In the derivation of the kinetic energy the formula:
mv/sqr(1-(v/c)^2)
may be separated into to partial fractions
m x v/Sqr(1-(v/c)^2)
then you integrate with respect to v from 0 to a number less than c to find
the kinetic energy.
This gives the solution mc2 for the rest mass energy as with the older
Einstein version. He chose his method because of theological augment to make
the maths easier: he said "God would not choose such a 'complicated'
mathematics". God is not stupid either.
This method gives the idea of a true or real velocity of v/sqr(1-(v/c)^2).
However the time taken for a round trip works out different from the usual
relativity theory, as in a Metric space.
The general theory is a metric space where the distance shortest between
adjacent points is given by a metric resulting from the sum mass + energy
nearby. It could be represented by a matrix which could include the special
theory as terms in the matrix to work out the distance between adjacent
points.
Again there is no real contraction it caused by 4-perpective due the metric
caused by the constancy of the velocity of light.
The metric is the way (a formula - a set of rules) we calculate the distance
between points in a manifold. In ordinary Euclidian 3-space it is given by
Pythagoras: s^2=x1^2+x2^2+x3^2. In Einstienian 4 space it is
s^2=x1^2+x2^2+x3^2-(ct)^2 That is when nothing in the description is moving.
When things move the usage is to measure distances, usually of the observers
frame.
The metric tensor then contains the elements that are involved is special
relativity, transforming measurements from one frame to another. It
transforms one 4-vector to another 4-vector in the general case which
includes acceleration and gravity then the metric tensor contains these
elements as well.
But it still transforms from one 4-vector to another 4-vector in matrix
multiplication.
V2=V1 x M where M is the metric tensor.
Einstein's idea was about light coming down from a lamp on a cliff as the
light came down it gains energy from the gravitational pull so that its
energy increases, Light cannot change velocity so the frequency rises to
h(f+df) so that h(df) is the increase, this energy comes from the fall sp
hdf=Gm/r1-Gm/r2 where r1 is the position of the light and r2 is his eye. Now
since this increase changes the colour of the light it is a blue shift. When
a light is shone up to the ledge a red shift occurs.
Since f=c/L where L is the wavelength the shape of space is smaller at the
bottom of the cliff than on the ledge.
It is the same as a clock because frequency of light is like the ticking of
a clock.
h(c/L)=Gm/r where r is the bottom of the fall from infinity. So the length
of space 1/L=Gm/hcr:
L=hcr/Gm hc/G is constant m is the central mass and r is the distance from
the centre of the spherical mass.
For 3 D a matrix must be used because the effect depends of the direction of
the vector it operates on.
The combination of the special and gravity makes the general theory and a
metric tensor (a 4 by 4 matrix) with 4 vector being the V1 and M the metric
tensor and V2 the exit vector. The values in the metric are formulas based
on the position of the mass and the velocity of the projectile, powered
trajectories require to include dynamic energy factors.
In the differential form the transformation is between adjacent points in
4-space and using Fermat's theorem the path of least time can be found and
this is a geodesic in the non Euclidian space near a massive object of a
projectile moving at relativistic velocity - close to c.
Another important path is where the projectile is powered by a rocket and
here the object is accelerating.
I would have thought total energy description - langranian type description
may be easier in conjunction with Fermat's theorem of least time to compute
the trajectory in space time as a series of 4-vectors.
There is no electric field. The force between electrons is carried by
virtual photons that connect one electron with one electron in another
place. It is an exchange force. They do not drop in force with distance the
density of photons varies with distance as the inverse square of the
distance so the probability of interaction goes down with distance, for
massive objects it gives you the inverse square law of coulomb.
The electron itself is a photon that cannot propagate because of its own
self gravity. The enclosed self energy is such that the photon cannot
propagate. "Stuck light" in fact. This photon is waving outside the stuck
place so its influence can be felt over an infinite distance. In fact, using
the group x phase velocity = constant we have that for electrons the group
velocity is 0 and the constant is c so the phase velocity is infinite. so
for some interactions like entanglement (a consequence of Fermi (electrons
come in pairs - up and down) ) then the change of an electron up to down
that is tangled with it pair 10 light years away will be felt
instantaneously and the other member of the pair will change from down to up
with no loss of amplitude.
This might be of interest too ...
A virtual particle is one that does not exist (by definition).
In classical electromagnetism radiation from a dipole there are two Hertzian
waves, the space wave that leaves the dipole and carries energy and momentum
with it and the induction field which does not radiate but whose energy
passes back to to the radiator.
The space wave is a radiant energy field whose power is E.X.H (the vector
product of E and H) this is known as Poynting's (it is a man's name) vector
this has a frequency f. Now this actually consists of (E x H)/hf photons per
second each having an energy hf. These photons are the result of transitions
inside the conductor of the dipole as the electrons jump from one level to
another (according to microwave theory this is at the permitted frequency of
the exciter) as they do so the emit a photon carrying the energy hf, the
total momentum change. They do not weaken with the inverse square law they
connect with another electron in a random manner such that all their energy
and total momentum is taken up by the electron. The density of these photons
diminishes as the inverse square of the distance and with the polar diagram
of the radiator.
The induction field is the one with the virtual photons they do not
propagate and collapse back to their emitting electrons.
Mutual and Self Inductance
Mutual and Self Inductance are quantum mechanical effects involving photons
inside the inductance. Think of Fyneman.
The acceleration of charges generates photons according to hf where the
frequency of the sinusoid exciter if f and h Planck's constant. The number
of photons is the energy of the sinusoid divided by hf. These photons are
emitted and absorbed during the cycle making inductance. The photons are
emitted by one electron when it makes a transition to another level the step
is at the energy corresponding frequency of the exciter it is connected only
to one other electron that changes its energy by the same amount, the photon
also caries the angular momentum associated with the transition, this is the
change of angular momentum and the vector difference in momentum between the
two energy states. The photons interact randomly without any loss of energy,
momentum or angular momentum but the distribution of the interactions means
that the density falls according to the inverse square law and the radiation
polar diagram. This applies to mutual and self inductance and to normal
radiation from a wire.
When a solenoid is subjected to a step function then the photons have a
distribution of frequency similar to a radiating black body (see Planck who
worked out the messy equation) and are re-absorbed at the same time causing
the effect of self inductance.
If you make a single loop of wire bent into a circle and pass a regulated 1
amp current through it you will make a "magnetic field". According to Gauss
you have to imagine it is there and calculate accordingly. Then comes an
extraordinary performance of human intellect beginning with the magnetic
shells
construction that shows that the field is uniform across the plane of the
loop.
According to Carl Popper we should now measure it to see. Using a compass as
a tangent galvanometer with the earth's field as a reference you can measure
the relative strength of the field in the region of the magnet by measuring
its deflection (according to the field theory). I have done this and the
field is about three times higher near the wire than at the centre. This
disproves the magnetic shell construction.
Another basic algorithm is the idea that a series of loops is like one loop
multiplied. Well if you do the same thing for six turns then the compass
measurement is the same near the wire than at the centre.
This shows that the basic algorithm of what is true on one is true of many
as one times the number of repetitions, is false.
I would like to propose a different model: that the magnet is responding to
spin-spin interactions as a quantum mechanical effect. These are entirely
electrostatic in nature.
The magnetic field does not exist it is fictitious.
The model of the magnetic effect of current is in reality the Lorenz
contraction of the moving electrons relative to the fixed charges in the
wire and the electrostatic force is mediated by virtual photons.
Since the electrons always occupy the same space in the wire even though
they are moving it shows that special relativity is an effect like
perspective.
The inductive effect is in reality caused by the acceleration of electrons.
Now these little charged particles are governed by quantum mechanics and the
energy states up the ladder are discontinuous and the electrons jump from
one state to the next the two states overlap and during the transition a
fluctuation occurs and a photon emission occurs, just like the hydrogen
spectrum.
This photon interacts with just one electron in another wire or the same
wire and imparts momentum and energy to change the electron from its
original state to its new state. This also means that the photon carries
momentum both
linear and angular and energy.
This is both mutual and self inductance.
Electromagnetism
Electromagnetism theory reached its pinnacle in the nineteenth century with
Maxwell's famous equations.
Let us take two examples.
The case of two parallel conductors carrying current.
1. Currents parallel.
The current is a slow movement of electrons with fixed positive charges.
The
electrons are moving parallel in the two wires so are stationary relative to
each other. The positive charges are seen as moving. According to
Einstein's theory of relativity the length of the positive charge is
contracted as seen
by the electrons and so the electrons see an increased charge density over
the charge density of the electrons. This makes the force of attraction
between unlike charges slightly greater than the force of repulsion between
unlike
charges. This means that there is a net force of attraction.
2. Currents anti-parallel.
The electrons are now moving anti-parallel and so they see a length
contraction of the other electron charge. The positive charges are also
seen contracted but not as much. So the electrons are seen as having a
greater charge density than the fixed positive charges. Thus the force of
repulsion of like charges is greater than the force of attraction of unlike
charges. This means there is a net force of repulsion. Induction. Consider
two conducting wires parallel. One conductor has an alternating current
flowing in it. This means that the electrons are accelerating and thus
their electric field lines have a kink in them so there is a transverse
component this field moves the electrons in
the other wire. Thus producing an induced potential. The magnitude of the
induced potential would be proportional to the rate of change of the current
in the first conductor.
1) currents parallel and 2) currents antiparallel.
Case 1) Currents parallel;
The positive charges are fixed and charges in wire I repel those in wire 2
with a force per meter of +(Ne.Ne/r)eO where N is the number of electrons in
1 meter and r the separation in meters, eO is the permittivity of free
space.
The electrons in wire 1 see the electrons in wire 2 as fixed as well so they
see a force between them of +(Ne.Ne/r)eO
The electrons in wire 1 see a force of attraction between them and the fixed
charges in the wire but because there is relative motion the force
is -(Ne.Ne/r)eO/sqr( 1-(v/c)2).
The electrons in wire 2 see a force of attraction between them and the fixed
charges in the wire and this again is -(Ne.Ne/r)eO/(sqr( 1-(v/c)2)
so the total force is +2(Ne.Ne/r)-2(Ne.Ne/reO/sqr( 1-v/c)2)
this is: 2(Ne.Ne/r)eO( 1- 1/sqr( 1-vIc)2).
1/sqr(1-(v/c)2)=(l-(v/c)2)(-l./2) = (1+(1/2)(v/c)2 ) to a first term
approximation for low velocities.
so the force is approximately: 2(Ne.Ne/r)eO( 1-1 +( 1/2)(vIc2)
2(Ne.Ne/r)eO( 1/2)(vlc)2= (Ne.Ne/r)v2/c2=(Nve.Nve/r)eO/c2
since Nve=I the current then the force is + (iA2Ir)eO/cA2 since WIcA2uO the
permeability of free space then the force is µO(i.i/r) the normal answer
found by experiment.
In the case of the currents anti parallel the analysis is similar but the
result is a similar force of repulsion.
The hr force law is derived by integrating along the wire with wire elements
repelling other wire elements by the inverse square law.
This is a well known result from electrostatics. So magnetism is actually
the same as electrostatics and does away with any need for magnetism. This
simplifies things but invalidates electromagnetism theory.
In the case of a curved wire as in a circular loop the force on an element
carrying current is:
µO(idLidl/r2)Sin(theta) where theta is the angle between them (biot-savart
proved above). To find the force on an element in a circular loop you
integrate all round the loop.
The point at distance r from the axis at an angle psi from the vertical is a
distance 41 from a point on the circular loop a distance P. from the axis
(the radius) and an angle chi from the vertical experiences a force between
the two elements of(r angle psi - R angle chi) using r and psi fixed
integrate for fixed R and clii going from 0 to 359 degrees using numerical
methods.
That gives a net force towards the centre that increases from the axis
towards the wire as the value of r is varied for each integration.
If you use a loop of wire inside carrying a current the force tends to push
the loop to the centre.
These principles can be used to design machines that contain plasma for
generating power using alternating current, transformers and motors using
less iron than is usual and levitating ovens that can purify metal in a
vacuum without needing a crucible.
Transformer
Since the interaction between wires in a transformer is by photons and not
by this fictitious force of magnetism the electrons in one wire connect to
the other by the photons emitted as the velocity of individual electrons
change.
This means we do not need the heavy Iron laminations, the connection is
electrostatic in nature (by photons) so the iron should be between the wires
that are interacting, this applies to self-inductance as well so the best
results will be by putting dust iron in resin and embedding the wires of
both windings by potting in this resin containing dust iron. Or use a low
loss ferrite.
Because the permeability is related to the permittivity of an dielectric by
the velocity of light then a dielectric may be used but the value is much
smaller. µ(e/c2) here u is the permeability and e the permittivity.
Electromagnetism
The reasoning below shows that there is no magnetic field it is a false
concept. Iron filings are not an indication of strength at all. It is a
fallacy.
This theory is based around the special theory of relativity and the
relative motion of electrons and fixed charges in a conductor.
With alternating current the electrons are accelerating and generate photons
at the exciting frequency and this radiation is responsible for other
aspects of electromagnetism. This includes the induction of current in one
conductor by alternating current in another.
Electromagnetism theory reached its pinnacle in the nineteenth century with
Maxwell's famous equations.
Let us take two examples.
The case of two parallel conductors carrying current
1. Currents parallel.
The current is a slow movement of electrons with fixed positive charges.
The electrons are moving parallel in the two wires so are stationary
relative to each other. The positive charges are seen as moving. According
to Einstein's theory of relativity the length of the positive charge is
contracted as seen by the electrons and so the electrons see an increased
charge density over the charge density of the electrons. This makes the
force of attraction between unlike charges slightly greater than the force
of repulsion between unlike charges. This means that there is a net force of
attraction.
2. Currents anti-parallel.
The electrons are now moving anti-parallel and so they see a length
contraction of the other electron charge. The positive charges are also
seen contracted but not as much. So the electrons are seen as having a
greater charge density than the fixed positive charges. Thus the force of
repulsion of like charges is greater than the force of attraction of unlike
charges. This means there is a net force of repulsion.
Induction
Consider two conducting wires parallel. One conductor has an alternating
current flowing in it. This means that the electrons are changing their
energy and emit photons at the exciting frequency these are emitted in
random directions like a messenger with the energy change and momentum
(angular and linear) and these are absorbed by electrons in another
conductor nearby and this information is transferred by photon collision to
make the electrons in the other wire move thus inducing an current.
In all these cases no magnetic field was required to account for the
phenomena involved. So invoking Occum's razor, the magnetic field in not
required and so does not exist. Consider two long straight copper conductors
each carrying the same current in the same direction. The electrons move
together at the same velocity in each cable. They repel one another. The
fixed positive charges repel each other. However the electrons wire A
attract the fixed charges in wire B but because the electrons are moving
relative to the fixed charges they will see a higher charge density than the
charge density due to the electrons in B so the attraction of electrons to
fixed positive charges is higher than the repulsion between the
same number of electrons in B. Similarly for electrons in wire B and the
fixed positive charges in wire A. n=number of atoms per meter e=electronic
charge d=separation l=length P=permittivity v=drift velocity of electrons
c=velocity of light
The force of repulsion is P*2*((e*n)^2)*l /d (= F)
And the force of attraction is P*(2*((e*n)^2)*l/d)/sqr(1-(v/c)^2)
So the resultant force is F-F/sqr(1-(v/c)^2)=F(1-1/sqr(1-(v/c)^2))
=F(1-(1-(v/c)^2)^(-1/2))
=F(1-(1+(1/2)(v/c)^2))
= F(v/c)^2/2
= (P*2*((e*n)^2)*l/d)(v/c)^2/2
= (P/c)*(((e*n*v)^2)*l/d)
=(P/c)*i^2*l/d (e*n*v=i)
So P/c is the "permeability" and the force is proportional to the current
squared and the length but inversely proportional to the separation. There
is no need for the idea of the magnetic field. There is no magnetic field
Experimental Test
Karl Popper has explained the scientific method. Use the predictions of the
theory and test experimentally when judging a philosophical idea.
Science in only science if you carry out experiments to test the theories of
yourself or another. To play philosophical games with words and equations
is not science.
Go get a bit of wire make a straight part 40 cm long and connect it to a
constant current source of say 1 amp.
Get the old electrostatic kit out of the 18th century box and using a glass
rod wiped with silk make a pith ball coated with gold leaf charged by
bringing the glass rod close to the ball and touch the ball briefly with a
finger. The ball will be repelled by the glass rod.
Put the pith ball (suspended by a silk thread from a curved glass stand)
near the wire and note the deflection from the vertical when the current is
switched on.
I predict it will be repelled if negatively charged and attracted if
positively charged. (confirmed)
A bar magnet is in fact a group of spinning electrons which are coupled by
spin-spin interactions (Quantum mechanics) that are mediated by virtual
photons again a force that is electronic and connected to the Lorenz
contraction.. The force on another bar magnet is actually due to spin-spin
interactions (Quantum mechanics) which is electronic and related to the
Lorenz contraction. A loop of wire carrying a current is again interacting
with another current carrying conductor by the electrostatic force (mediated
by virtual photons) and is again a result of the Lorenz contraction. The
calculation to use is the biot-savart hypothesis (force between current
elements) integrated. In view of this new insight we should re-name
magnetism as the "Lorenz force". It also means that many of our reasoning
based on observations made 300 years ago before Einstein developed his
special theory of relativity are misconceived as they are based on the wrong
model.
The Gaussian construction of magnetic shells does not come into it there is
no magnetic flux or lines of force.
As a disclaimer I will point out that I am not the first or only person to
point this out.
String Theory
String theory started as a simple way of modelling the characteristics of
elementary particles as the result wave movement on a tiny circular string
so that the various quantum states that produce particles are dependant on
the number of standing waves around this string So more massive particles
with more energy had more nodes in the waves thus more waves around the
string.
Going back from this, the idea came from an electromagnetic representation
of a particle as a photon going in a circle trapped by its own self gravity.
So a photon pair when collided can form a little circulating standing wave
and the electrical energy so contained makes for a gravitational bending of
space so that the photon travels in a circle, when there is only one
wavelength round a particle is formed in its ground state and thus lowest
mass, higher energy states occur with more waves and thus higher frequency.
The relationship of the trapped energy to frequency gives Planck's constant.
It is discontinuous because only some combinations of wavelength to circular
path and gravitational curvature fit.
I originally discussed this with Jonathan in about 1967-1968, he thought
straight strings with mass and tension was easier to calculate, hence
"string theory", when we were both working at the Rutherford Laboratory,
Oxford. The original Idea, that I had in about 1961, was based on a
unification of Gravity and Electromagnetism and Quantum Mechanics. The
theory was much simpler than it sounds. Basically it said that
Electromagnetic fields had energy and the energy content warped space time
according to General Relativity so if the Electromagnetic field was strong
enough the Gravitational effect would make the electromagnetic wave orbit
and not travel. This trapped wave then is a particle. You have then to
quantize it by saying that the Energy of the wave is related to its
frequency by the Planck equation and then that only integer wavelengths are
allowed round one of these orbits. These trapped waves form all our
particles. They have different frequencies and can form from more than one
frequency photons hybridising, so that a very large number of separate
particles may come into existence.The radius of the tron to stop light
escaping (the Swartzchild radius) is when the escape velocity equals the
velocity of light. I make this:
given by Gm/r^2=c........1 (This is the escape
velocity at distance r from m (I think if I remember correctly))
and the energy of the mass m as:
E=mc^2.
The frequency of light of this energy is given by the Planck equation:
E=hf
So f=mc^2/h ... This is the frequency of the
photon to make up a mass m.
Now for a photon wave to fit the Swartzchild circumference so it goes round
an integer wavelength times, then (fL=c) and nL=2.pi.r so nc/f=2.pi.r
so nc/(mc^2/h)=2.pi.r.......2
Solving these two conditions for m gives:
m=2(c/G)r^2 and m=n(h/2.pi)(1/r) where n is a positive integer.
This gives a series of increasing values of m with each n as m increases
then r increases By eliminating r and taking n=1 we can get an interesting
relation between fundamental constants: h=2.pi.sqr(G(m/c)^3) where m is the
mass of the electron. I do not know if this works out.
Here is a more general relation:
If the energy of an element of a electromagnetic wave is E^2/c where E is
the local electric field then the equivalent elemental mass is given by the
relation dmc^2=E^2/c. so dm=E^2/c^3. The gravitational force between
elemental masses is Gdm1.dm2/(r12)^2 So the gravitational binding energy of
the whole wave is:
GSum(dm(n).dm(n)/(r(m,n))^2) over all m,n m<>n.
For a particular element this sum is the energy at that point:
GSum(dm.dm(m)/r(m)^2) goes to GIntegral(dm.dm/r^2)
The differential form is Gdm/r
Using the plank relation hf=energy then f=energy/h and energy is potential
plus kinetic. The potential energy is the
gravitational potential and the kinetic energy is Poynting's electromagnetic
vector as a scalar.
So f=-Gdm/r/h+E^2/hc
So f=-GE^2/hrc^3+E^2/hc=E^2((-G/hc^3)(1/r)+1/hc)
f=E^2/hc((G/c^2)(-1/r)+1)
I can't go any further, but it looks like a relation between r, E and f that
can be made into a differential equation that will give a similar equation
to the Schrödinger equation for an electron orbital, but instead applying to
the photon trapped by gravity to form the electron. I think Schrödinger
itself could be a case where the proton wave and the electron wave interact
to make something new.
When a Proton (very heavy) unites with an electron to form a hydrogen atom
it is known that the photons that make them up interact so that the electron
occupies more space as Schrödinger said, with the proton photons interacting
by interference with the electron photon the Electron Proton pair having
lower energy than either separately and the bonding changing the photon in
the electron's behaviour. In fact the electron may end up surrounding the
proton with the proton inside the electron so the photons that make them up
form an interference pattern that is the atom. So an electron is therefore a
photon that has been trapped, or frozen, by its own mass/energy
gravitational field so it cannot propagate. So all particles are like this
and are made of photons of various frequencies, and indeed there could be
particles containing more than one photon.
There is no electric field.
The force between electrons is carried by virtual photons that connect one
electron with one electron in another place. It is an exchange force. They
do not drop in force with distance the density of photons varies with
distance as the inverse square of the distance so the probability of
interaction goes down with distance, for massive objects it gives you the
inverse square law of coulomb. The electron itself is a photon that cannot
propagate because of its own self gravity. The enclosed self energy is such
that the photon cannot propagate. "Stuck light" in fact. This photon is
waving outside the stuck place so its influence can be felt over an infinite
distance. In fact, using the group x phase velocity = constant we have that
for electrons the group velocity is 0 and the constant is c so the phase
velocity is infinite. so for some interactions like entanglement (a
consequence of being fermions (electrons come in pairs - up and down) ) then
the change of an electron up to down that is tangled with it pair 10 light
years away will be felt instantaneously and the other member of the pair
will change from down to up with no loss of amplitude.
This might be of interest to ... A virtual particle is one that does not
exist (by definition). In classical electromagnetism radiation from a dipole
there are two Hertzian waves, the space wave that leaves the dipole and
carries energy and momentum with it and the induction field which does not
radiate but whose energy passes back to to the radiator. The space wave is a
radiant energy field whose power is E.X.H (the vector product of E and H)
this is known as Poynting's (it is a man's name) vector this has a frequency
f. Now this actually consists of (E x H)/hf photons per second each having
an energy hf. These photons are the result of transitions inside the
conductor of the dipole as the electrons jump from one level to another
(according to microwave theory this is at the permitted frequency of the
exciter) as they do so they emit a photon carrying the energy hf, the total
momentum change (think of it like a messenger). They do not weaken with the
inverse square law they connect with another electron in a random manner
such that all their energy and total momentum is taken up by the electron.
The density of these photons diminishes as the inverse square of the
distance and with the polar diagram of the radiator. The induction field is
the one with the virtual photons they do not propagate and collapse back to
their emitting electrons.
Try thinking in terms of a photon as a "messenger" with numbers attached:
the momentum change as a vector and angular momentum change as another
vector. It looks like a short burst of electric wobbles, but in fact it is
the signal from a distant electron interfering with itself as it settles to
its new state. The influence is the electron itself waving that is felt at a
distance.
This is not entanglement.
Spectra
It is in reality the "stuff" of matter interacting with another matter a
distance away.
The electron is energy (shall we say a disturbance in the shape of electric
space) that cannot propagate because the energy it made changes the geodesic
it is in into a loop so it gets stuck. This can influence other electrons at
a distance after a propagation delay as their wave functions interact.
The group x phase velocity = c so for electrons as g>=0 then p<= infinity
(nearly) the Fermi principle states that electrons exist in pairs up + down
so conservation says if E1 up>down then E2 down>up and they "know" at the
phase velocity.
Communication by quantum entanglement
Experiment: use mixed water separated then frozen and use a loop with a
magnetic field to flip the up/down because in a magnetic field they have
different energies and with another loop around the other sample from the
same bucket and similar magnet detect the flips, this is communication by
quantum entanglement good for light years and nearly instant. The connection
is secure as only bucket 1 has the entanglement so bucket 2 won't see it.
Not what you think at all.
Early universe:
You should know that a dot and another dot on paper are two separate
disjoint spaces of 0 dimensions and a line here and a line there are two
disjoint spaces of one dimension.
two planes separate are two 2 d spaces and a sphere surface is a 2 d finite
space a box is a 3 d space, however they are all embedded in our 4 d space
which is all we know, as we look at light coming from 5 minutes after the
big bang we are looking at an old space smaller than now so the light
changes frequency to fit the bigger space. when T= 0.1 the universe was tiny
and since the quanta fill the universe nothing had the energy to leave the
ground state so it was at 0K. It was only photons that filled the nearly
nothing and blew it apart with radiation pressure: bang!
Christopher Strevens |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bill Hobba |
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris" <none@noserver.com> wrote in message
news:oFSOi.417717$p7.98498@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Quote:
New Electricity
Magnetic Field Due to Current
The model proposed by Maxwell that relies on the current loop and is
worked out by Gauss an example of fluid mechanics (to make the mathematics
beautiful and easy), and is based around the Pythagorean philosophy of
perfection is not only just a bit out by completely wrong based on the
wrong principles.
True. QED is the correct framework. Obviously however that is not what you
had in mind; which is far a I can see is a useless word salad.
Rest snipped.
Bill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:14 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Oct 9, 7:14 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
Quote: "Chris" <n...@noserver.com> wrote in message
news:oFSOi.417717$p7.98498@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
New Electricity
Magnetic Field Due to Current
The model proposed by Maxwell that relies on the current loop and is
worked out by Gauss an example of fluid mechanics (to make the mathematics
beautiful and easy), and is based around the Pythagorean philosophy of
perfection is not only just a bit out by completely wrong based on the
wrong principles.
True. QED is the correct framework. Obviously however that is not what you
had in mind; which is far a I can see is a useless word salad.
Rest snipped.
Bill
Correction: QED is the best framework we've found, and it is good to
the finest detail we have been able to probe. This is not the same
thing as correct. Chris' non-theory is not going to replace it any
time soon, though. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris |
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Please explain quantum electrodynamics.
My 'theory' is not a theory.
It just replaces classical electromagnetism with quantum mechanics and
relativity. And that is not 'my' theory it was taught to me at university,
I'm suprised you have not heard of it.
I think I may have made a statement about the starting point of QED. That I
believe replaces electromagnetism by quantum mechanics.
I've removed singularities from black holes and the ultra violet catastrophe
was worked out by max planck so why don't we be logical and throw out
classical physics altogether.
Are you saying that I'm wrong?
chris
<jamesahart79@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191975263.530207.16280@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Oct 9, 7:14 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"Chris" <n...@noserver.com> wrote in message
news:oFSOi.417717$p7.98498@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
New Electricity
Magnetic Field Due to Current
The model proposed by Maxwell that relies on the current loop and is
worked out by Gauss an example of fluid mechanics (to make the
mathematics
beautiful and easy), and is based around the Pythagorean philosophy of
perfection is not only just a bit out by completely wrong based on the
wrong principles.
True. QED is the correct framework. Obviously however that is not what
you
had in mind; which is far a I can see is a useless word salad.
Rest snipped.
Bill
Correction: QED is the best framework we've found, and it is good to
the finest detail we have been able to probe. This is not the same
thing as correct. Chris' non-theory is not going to replace it any
time soon, though.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bill Hobba |
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<jamesahart79@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191975263.530207.16280@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Oct 9, 7:14 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"Chris" <n...@noserver.com> wrote in message
news:oFSOi.417717$p7.98498@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
New Electricity
Magnetic Field Due to Current
The model proposed by Maxwell that relies on the current loop and is
worked out by Gauss an example of fluid mechanics (to make the
mathematics
beautiful and easy), and is based around the Pythagorean philosophy of
perfection is not only just a bit out by completely wrong based on the
wrong principles.
True. QED is the correct framework. Obviously however that is not what
you
had in mind; which is far a I can see is a useless word salad.
Rest snipped.
Bill
Correction: QED is the best framework we've found,
Further correction to my imprecision. The standard model which contains the
electroweak theory which contains QED is the best framework we have found.
Quote: and it is good to
the finest detail we have been able to probe. This is not the same
thing as correct. Chris' non-theory is not going to replace it any
time soon, though.
True
Thanks
Bill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:25 pm
|
|
