There has to be a mathematical link. The amount of correctness in
predicting chemical and fysical properties is just too amazing from both of
them. And you claim the theories cannot be linked. E.g one of them is junk.
Well mills theory is easy verified. No one have shown errors in those
current.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 12:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
There has to be a mathematical link. The amount of correctness in predicting
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway how to interpret the electron as a ball going around or really a
field is not yet proved even to date. If you look at Mills theory, the
electron is a spherical electron charge, so If he is right,
I have an idea how the push of the electron field can happen. As the proton
approaches the hydrogen's there will be a flat region i the electrostatic
force field in the middle. If the electron is there it would not like to
curve its field but keep it flattened in order to not radiat it will not
On Jun 29, 2014, at 14:14, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, mills theory and QED is pretty close in calculating quantities for
the hydrogen's atom. They must be dual or approx. Dual.
I doubt they are dual. The electron shell model says that with increasing
Yep I also suspect that the time constant of the adaptation of the electron
field is faster at the moderate speeds, but for the experiments where Gamov
factors rules I suspect that the electron field cannot adapt. Anyway again
theoreticians misses the elephant in the room. Physics is physics, not
Stefan--
You suggest that Pauli may enter Kim’s idea. How do you consider that spin
coupling enters the picture? Cooper pairing is generally considered a real
physical condition.
Bob
Sent from Windows Mail
From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014
bare in mind that I'm really an engineer and not a physisits, I mostly
poses some, as I think, interesting questions, and suggest, a bit wildly,
some ideas.
When it comes to Pauli principle e.g. that you cannot fit to many electrons
on the same energy state, you essentially get a field separation
http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/news2/news.asp?a=2870t=today
Here is some science related to the subject that concerns you. The gluon
may contain magnetic properties and scientists want to build an electron
ion collider to get more info on the properties to the gluon under added
energy conditions.
The
Hi all,
I was wondering about the higher then expected rates of fusion seen in
accelerator experiments at moderate speeds seen by researcher and explained
by electron screening. The fundamental paper Kim et all i basing his theory
on is in a sense interesting and can be a reality, but I did only
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
The fundamental paper Kim et all i basing his theory on is in a sense
interesting and can be a reality, but I did only see that they manage to
fit the model to the data, not really a proof of that the
Over fitting was my feeling when reading about Kim et al. On the other hand
if you can make use of first principles and simulate a collision that would
be great for understanding of what happens in a collision. Of cause
assuming that QED is good enough to model the electrodynamic stage of the
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
My thought is the following, if the proton hit the hydrogen atom fast
enough the electron field does not adapt fast enough and I would assume
that the picture is like a bullet penetrating a shield. Here the
13 matches
Mail list logo
