[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Andrew Meulenberg]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:15 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear that most
> of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level physics based on
> wrong understanding of basic physics rules.
> On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
> Jurg,
>
> Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons behind
> rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.
>
> Comments below
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I could give you a very long list. First problem: *The Dirac equation
>> itself is only working for fields and never for mass. *
>>
> Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand it.
> Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the point.
>
> For me all mass is EM mass. But dense EM mass has a different topology
> than EM mass from radiation fields.
>
I agree with the words. We'll see about the specifics.

> The Dirac equation has been formulated based on the believe that you can
> convert e+/- into energy aka waves. But the Dirac equation describes static
> fields only and EM mass is equivalent only for radiation fields. So you
> cannot connect the 2 different forms of mass inside one equation.
>
A good thought; but, I believe, still to be determined.

> The other problem is that also the symmetric Bra-Ket operator does not
> help as e+/- almost never decay into 2 photons of the same mass. The 511keV
> photon is a very rare exception 0.01%. So all Dirac/QED formalism used
> is pretty unphysical where physical means as seen in experiments.
>
I've seen too many spectra with 511 keV peaks from annihilation radiation
to believe your statement unless you are talking 511.00 keV.

> Radiation fields do 2 rotations, where as mass does 3 (electron) or 5
> proton. So any equation with one side E other mc depends on the location
> (field, radiation field, dense mass e/p) used.
>
These rotations are from your model(s).  They may or may not be consistent
with other models or reality.

>
> From my view, it doesn't make sense. I consider the electron to be a
> bound photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass. Thus,
> Dirac pertains.
>
> This makes sense. But if the electrons is a bound photon you can only use
> halve of the coulomb gauge as there is no charge potential. But as said the
> bound electron makes 3 - not uniform rotations = 3 waves what is not
> compatible with the solution for the Dirac equation.
>
Charge is a directional *E*-field. Photons are also composed of directional
fields. When appropriately bound and twisted, the photon field can be
uniquely inwardly and outwardly directed. The inward-directed field is
concentrated and becomes your "dense EM mass." An outward-directed field
has reduced field density outside the bound photon and is a "stable" field,
but would still correspond to your "EM mass from radiation fields". The
lepton charge is determined by whether the *E*-field is directed in or out.
Charge conservation and the means of forming it depends on equal splitting
of the photon fields into lepton pairs with net zero charge.

This is close to my model of the photon/lepton picture:
(PDF) A new linear theory of light and matter - ResearchGate

Note that the two leptons are both a torus.

> The inclusion of the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a
>> mathematician with no clue of physics.
>>
>> The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
>> equation dm= E/c2. But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré)
>> conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields. So
>> the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There are
>> other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just
>> finishing a paper about this.
>>
> I would be interested in your paper even tho I believe we may be starting
> with incompatible assumptions for our models.
>
> Do you consider standing waves to be radiation or static fields? Are bound
> fields necessarily "static"? I consider photons to be self-bound fields
> (solitons) that are propagating at the speed of light. However, as such,
> they are emitted radiation, not radiating fields. (I have trouble simply
> expressing the difference between emission and radiation of field energy.)
>
>
> A bound "standing wave" is EM mass. It's not even a wave as the mass orbit
> is following the Clifford torus (CT) and only the projection into real
> space makes you claim its a wave. But I use the term wave too because
> people are used to it.
>
A standing wave can be linear. I think that a torus form may be a specific
EM type that is "self-bound". Both have mass; but, the linear has
alternating mass (+ & -, both gravitating, but going thru zero). The EM
Torus has a fixed mass (+ or -).

> The emitted photon is not a 

[Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics

[Vibrator !]

> I have been doing more reading about the history of stimulated
> emission. Einstein formally introduced a quantum version of the concept in
> 1917.
> Therefore you might think that it is only possible in a quantum
theoretical
> context. However, subsequent mathematical work has shown that a form of
> stimulated emission can also arise in a classical (pre-quantum) setting
> when a suitable model of the atom is used.

The key point about stimulated emission is that it exploits the suspension
of superposition exclusion to enable an aggregate system to cohere under a
unitary wavefuntion; the corollary effect being coherent absorption, such
that the initial plasma system can be classically described right up to the
population inversion:  from which point all electrons are bouncing between
peak energy and stable bottom, emitting and absorbing essentially the same
photons in sync..

..so the quantum / classical threshold there is Pauli exclusion; the
spontaneous photomultiplication resulting from collective coherence of the
electron population is a pretty fundamental kind of 'resonance', not your
average harmonic oscillator.

On this key point about coherent absorption as well as emission, see Green
at al "Limiting photovoltaic monochromatic light conversion efficiency"
2001, noting that in PV cells for which recombination is mainly radiative,
a stimulated emission regime could take efficiency arbitrarily close to the
Carnot limit;  his team down in Oz are currently up to ~70% - again, for
monochromatic (basically laser) light - with increasing applications in ie.
wireless power transmission, electrical isolation / firewalling etc., and
obvs much greater range (albeit limited to LoS) than classical inductive
transmission techniques.

A stimulated emission mode / regime is an inherently quantum-classical
system, a unique means of corralling quantum systems distinct from Faraday
and Maxwell et al; the system's propensity to begin lasing a direct
consequence of the quantisation of energy & momentum:  in the tensioned
'population inversion' state, ideally at least, a single photon of further
input energy will inevitably trigger a cascade of absorption and emission
because there's nowhere else for this conserved quantised energy to go, ie.
further input energy catalyses a cyclic phase transition between high and
low-energy states, because the transitions are quantised, and because a
whole bunch of fermions are behaving as a kind of extended quasi-boson,
holding the same quantum-energy states at the same time.

It's that force-feedback dynamic, like a turbine, generating this
low-entropy livewire state of perfect photoelectric synchrony.. coherent
emission AND absorption, en masse..

On a bit of a tangent perhaps, but in his later years GC Huth posited that
the retinal cells of the fovea may form a kind of phase-conjugate mirror,
which may have thought-provoking implications for ie. the nature of eye
contact between sentients, optic nerves essentially being extensions of
cortex:  what if electrons in remote rhodopsin discs are entangled by the
same photons?  'A twinkle in the eye'..  'windows on the soul'.. (woo-wavy
hands)

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics

[MSF]

Harry wrote:

> I had to look up those references. :-)
>
> Susquehanna Hat Co
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THZV5g1CNZM
> The Three Stooges - Slowly I Turned
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYP1OBZfFK0
>
>>

Clearly you have been too enveloped in your flaming youth to appreciate the 
finer things in life, a hindrance to your cultural and intellectual development 
;-)

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics

[H LV]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:42 AM William Beaty  wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, H LV wrote:
>
> > I have been doing more reading about the history of stimulated
> > emission. Einstein formally introduced a quantum version of the concept
> in
> > 1917.
>
> "STIMULATED EMISSION!"  Oh man don't even get me started.  (Too late!)
> Saying the words Stimulated Emission, that's like wearing a Susquehanna
> hat in an Abbott and Costello bit, and then saying "Niagara Falls"
> ...slowly I turned, step by step, INCH BY INCH.
>
> A very simple classical analog of Stimulated Emission (circuit-based
> stimulated emission) ...seems to have been missed by everyone.  It's a
> part of the "missing physics" of EM wave-absorption by atoms, photon-
> destruction, Einstein's fundamental mistakes about photoelectric effect,
> as well as being part of the odd "energy-sucking" effects seen with short
> resonant antennas.   All these topics constitute a single subject, and,
> having been missed by Classical physics textbooks, are declared to be
> "QM-only phenomena" when they crop up in various places.
>
> OK, first say we have a classical EM oscillator (a tank circuit hanging in
> space,)  and it's slowly emitting a small amount of radio waves.  Is there
> a way to force it to suddenly dump all of its stored energy as a huge
> blast of EM radiation?
>
> Certainly.  It's dead-simple stuff.  Should be part of every EM textbook.
>
> But it's not.
>
> Instead, Stimulated Emission is treated as some rare and unique, QM-only
> process, rather than a normal part of basic radio-science.  (Similar
> treatment is given to the weird behavior of electrically-small resonant
> antennas:  ignored, except when it crops up as "virtual photon" effects
> with atomic resonance, narrow-linewidth photon absorption,
> nearfield/evanescent "photon tunneling," etc.)
>
>
I found this paper from 1987 but it is not open access.
---
https://opg.optica.org/josab/abstract.cfm?uri=josab-4-1-78
Classical stimulated emission
Benjamin Fain and Peter W. Milonni
Abstract
Stimulated emission is formulated in completely classical terms and is
shown to occur in general only in nonlinear systems. Our approach is based
on the frequency-dependent susceptibility, which in both the classical and
quantum-mechanical descriptions is the main characteristic determining
whether there is absorption or stimulated emission. By using Bom’s
correspondence rule, we derive an expression for the lowest-order quantum
correction to the classical susceptibility.
-

I want to revisit Rayleigh and Jeans famous classical calculation for the
spectral energy distribution from a blackbody that produced the ultraviolet
catastrophe. When doing their calculation they required that the electric
field on the cavity wall must be zero everywhere for all frequencies. Since
the calculation resulted in a physically unrealistic prediction of the
spectral energy distribution did it occur to them that the boundary
condition was physically unrealistic? How would the calculation change if
the electric field were allowed to be frequency dependent?

This is a conventional but detailed presentation of Rayleigh and Jeans law
for blackbody radiation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCfPQLVzus4

Harry



> Put bluntly, Stimulated Emission works at DC, and obviously applies to
> all capacitors.
>
> If we have a charged capacitor, we can connect it to a resistor, and
> remove its energy according to RC time-constant.  Or, we can short it out,
> and the much shorter RC-constant then depends on the capacitor's internal
> impedance, and the micro-ohms of wire resistance (ignoring for the moment
> any wave-emission and LC effects.)
>
>
> Or instead, we can force that capacitor to dump out its energy at ANY fast
> rate desired, even many orders faster than just shorting it out.
>
> Simply hook it up to a high-amps constant-current supply.
>
> But hook it up backwards.
>
> Before the backwards-connected capacitor can begin to be "charged" by
> conneting it to this CC supply, first it has to be discharged to zero
> (where the joules in the capacitor are then EMITTED, and they must move
> out of the capacitor and into the CC supply.)  And clearly we can
> discharge this capacitor at ANY rate desired, proportional to the
> current-output of the backwards-connected CC supply.
>
> The discharge-time can easily be orders shorter than any conceivable
> natural RC-constant.  (The capacitor might possess micro-ohms of internal
> resistance, and if it's simply being shorted, have a very short RC time
> constant for discharge.  But if we apply a huge backwards current, we can
> discharge it hundreds of times faster than that, thousands of times, any
> speed desired.  That's the essence of Stimulated Emission of course:  the
> max rate of "energy dumping" is determined by the stimulating signal, not
> only by the characterists of the energy-storage capacitor (or resonator.) )
>
> Pretty cool, eh?
>
> And, 

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics

[H LV]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:42 AM William Beaty  wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, H LV wrote:
>
> > I have been doing more reading about the history of stimulated
> > emission. Einstein formally introduced a quantum version of the concept
> in
> > 1917.
>
> "STIMULATED EMISSION!"  Oh man don't even get me started.  (Too late!)
> Saying the words Stimulated Emission, that's like wearing a Susquehanna
> hat in an Abbott and Costello bit, and then saying "Niagara Falls"
> ...slowly I turned, step by step, INCH BY INCH.
>
>
I had to look up those references. :-)

Susquehanna Hat Co
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THZV5g1CNZM

The Three Stooges - Slowly I Turned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYP1OBZfFK0

>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[H LV]

Jones,
I looked quickly at the patent by Haisch and Moddel but could not find
anything about cooling. However, the authors of this paper,
ttps://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5893
experimentally investigated the claims of Haisch and Moddel in section
2.3.2. They tried to find alternative explanations for the observed
emissions. They ruled out cooling caused by the Joule-Thompson effect as a
possible explanation.

Harry


On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 5:12 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Harry - perhaps you should have a look at the work and patents of Haisch
> and Moddel on the Lamb shift mechanism using hydrogen or helium in Casimir
> cavities.
>
> The dynamical Casimir effect can be either positive or negative and Lamb
> shift photons would be cold. IIRC there was a measured cooling effect in
> some tests - not heating - which is what they wanted.
>
> H LV wrote:
>
> Now if energy levels below the ground state exist for a hydrogen atom then
> it may be possible to stimulate the electron-proton pair into this
> hypo-state, by exposing them to radiation which corresponds to the energy
> of the photon the pair is expected to release.
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics

[William Beaty]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, H LV wrote:


I have been doing more reading about the history of stimulated
emission. Einstein formally introduced a quantum version of the concept in
1917.


"STIMULATED EMISSION!"  Oh man don't even get me started.  (Too late!) 
Saying the words Stimulated Emission, that's like wearing a Susquehanna 
hat in an Abbott and Costello bit, and then saying "Niagara Falls" 
...slowly I turned, step by step, INCH BY INCH.


A very simple classical analog of Stimulated Emission (circuit-based 
stimulated emission) ...seems to have been missed by everyone.  It's a 
part of the "missing physics" of EM wave-absorption by atoms, photon- 
destruction, Einstein's fundamental mistakes about photoelectric effect, 
as well as being part of the odd "energy-sucking" effects seen with short 
resonant antennas.   All these topics constitute a single subject, and, 
having been missed by Classical physics textbooks, are declared to be 
"QM-only phenomena" when they crop up in various places.


OK, first say we have a classical EM oscillator (a tank circuit hanging in 
space,)  and it's slowly emitting a small amount of radio waves.  Is there 
a way to force it to suddenly dump all of its stored energy as a huge 
blast of EM radiation?


Certainly.  It's dead-simple stuff.  Should be part of every EM textbook.

But it's not.

Instead, Stimulated Emission is treated as some rare and unique, QM-only 
process, rather than a normal part of basic radio-science.  (Similar 
treatment is given to the weird behavior of electrically-small resonant 
antennas:  ignored, except when it crops up as "virtual photon" effects 
with atomic resonance, narrow-linewidth photon absorption, 
nearfield/evanescent "photon tunneling," etc.)


Put bluntly, Stimulated Emission works at DC, and obviously applies to 
all capacitors.


If we have a charged capacitor, we can connect it to a resistor, and 
remove its energy according to RC time-constant.  Or, we can short it out, 
and the much shorter RC-constant then depends on the capacitor's internal 
impedance, and the micro-ohms of wire resistance (ignoring for the moment 
any wave-emission and LC effects.)



Or instead, we can force that capacitor to dump out its energy at ANY fast 
rate desired, even many orders faster than just shorting it out.


Simply hook it up to a high-amps constant-current supply.

But hook it up backwards.

Before the backwards-connected capacitor can begin to be "charged" by 
conneting it to this CC supply, first it has to be discharged to zero 
(where the joules in the capacitor are then EMITTED, and they must move 
out of the capacitor and into the CC supply.)  And clearly we can 
discharge this capacitor at ANY rate desired, proportional to the 
current-output of the backwards-connected CC supply.


The discharge-time can easily be orders shorter than any conceivable 
natural RC-constant.  (The capacitor might possess micro-ohms of internal 
resistance, and if it's simply being shorted, have a very short RC time 
constant for discharge.  But if we apply a huge backwards current, we can 
discharge it hundreds of times faster than that, thousands of times, any 
speed desired.  That's the essence of Stimulated Emission of course:  the 
max rate of "energy dumping" is determined by the stimulating signal, not 
only by the characterists of the energy-storage capacitor (or resonator.) )


Pretty cool, eh?

And, whatever applies to capacitors, also applies to Classical LC tank 
circuits hovering in the vacuum.


An EM-resonator in space, if it contains some stored energy, is slowly 
leaking away it's EM energy as radio waves (or even optical photons) at 
the LC resonant freq.  We can force it to suddenly dump out all of 
its energy in any short time desired.  Simply blast it with an EM-wave 
which has 180deg phase relationship to that oscillator.  (This is the same 
as connecting a pre-charged capacitor to a HV power supply, connecting it 
backwards.)  Our tank circuit hovering in space must first discharge all 
its stored energy, before it can absorb any energy from the EM waves 
striking it.  Blast it with extremely high-amplitude waves, and first it 
will rapidly "dump" its stored energy ...then quickly fall to zero total 
stored energy ...then start rapidly absoring energy from the incoming 
waves.(Viewed from the side, it would suddenly output a huge flash of 
EM waves, before settling down and becoming a normal absorber.)


Everyone knows that we can quickly charge up a capaictor using an HV 
supply ...and the same applies to LC resonators hooked to HV AC power 
supplies tuned to resonate.


But if the capacitor or the LC resonator already contains some energy, 
then we can force a sudden "dumping," by connecting it to our power supply 
backwards.


Oddly, I've never encountered ANYONE discussing these concepts.  The 
closest have been the few papers about the enormously wide "effective 
apertures" seen with short resonant antennas.  (And then