Maybe it is just an entangled group of components that looks like one particle when measured.
Unparticles? On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:20 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Harry, > > I have not given much thought about free electrons. The example that we > were discussing was of an electron trapped in orbit around a nucleus which > then would have the positive charge of the nucleus to keep it together. > > I think that Mills offers incite into how this type of electron > configuration would exist. Quantum mechanics offers an alternate model. I > have not convinced myself of exactly what is happening but perhaps one day > I can reach an acceptable understanding. > > It seems that there is about as much reason for a point charge to tear > itself apart as there would be for a distributed one to do so. The fact > that the spin can be worked with independent of the charge suggests that > there is a volume of some type being occupied by the electron pieces. > Maybe it is just an entangled group of components that looks like one > particle when measured. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Mar 26, 2013 1:23 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other > theories > > Dave, > a continous charge distribution presents another problem. Why doesn't > this _electric form_ spontaneously distintergrate from internal > repulsion? I can think of two solutions: > > a) the electric form has a distinct hypothetical internal structure > which binds it together, > b) or the electric form has two fundamental characteristics. The > contents of the electric form are self-attractive but those contents > appear repulsive to other electric forms. > > My preference is for the latter because it is less complicated and > more evocative. > > > Harry > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:22 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > > Harry, > > > > The answer to your first question is yes. > > > > If the charge rotation is about a dimension that is not along the > > circumference of the wheel then I think it would radiate in the far field. > > I have never considered that type of movement before, but I am confident > > that there would not be enough points(2) along the direction of rotation to > > balance out in the far field. Had the charge been continuous over the > > entire surface then the far field would balance out. You ask an interesting > > question. > > > > When I visualize a system of this type I attempt to see if it is possible to > > deconstruct the charge movement into individual loops that are continuous. > > If this can be done, then the far field will balance out and you will only > > have a near field magnetic effect. > > > > Dave > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > > Sent: Mon, Mar 25, 2013 12:07 am > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other > > theories > > > > Dave, > > I did not know that. So, for example, a uniformly charged circular > > ring spinning like a wheel will not radiate? > > Will it radiate if it is rotating about its diameter? > > > > Harry > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:26 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > >> Harry, it is certainly true that the current flows in a loop. The > >> important > >> issue is that each tiny portion of the loop radiates a signal as it > >> accelerates, but that the integration of all of the individual signals > >> balance out and results in no net radiation. A circular loop of current > >> will thus demonstrate a near field which is the magnetic moment of the > >> loop, > >> but does not generate a far field of radiation. The near field component > >> of > >> the signal does not result in energy loss with time. > >> > >> The motion of a single point charge does result in a far field radiation > >> pattern since it accelerates along the circular path and does not have a > >> balancing mechanism. The trick is in the balance. > >> > >> For the above reasons there would be no energy loss as a result of the > >> current flow if it consisted of a continuous charge distribution orbiting > >> a > >> nucleus. That is not true for a point charge following the same path. > >> > >> Dave > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > >> Sent: Sun, Mar 24, 2013 10:28 pm > >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other > >> theories > >> > >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > >> wrote: > >>> Harry, > >>> > >>> An electron would not spiral into the nucleus if it is a continuous > >>> charge > >>> instead of a point source. Think of it as a steady DC current which > >>> generates a magnetic field that does not radiate energy like an > >>> accelerated > >>> charge. This model is likely not correct, but it would achieve what you > >>> are > >>> discussing. > >>> > >>> Dave > >> > >> All current flows in a loop so acceleration must occur in some zones > >> in the loop. > >> > >> Harry > >> > > > > >
