Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Good question, as I understand there is standing wave fields between the
>> shells so the volume is indeed filled up electromagnetically couldn't this
>> explain what you are after.
>>
>
> The volume in question here is the nuclear volume and not the atomic
> volume, where the electrons reside.  In the case of a 0+ to 0+ transition,
> my copy of Krane's Introductory Nuclear Physics says that this is an
> electric monopole transition (E0), and it can happen when an even-even
> nucleus transitions from an excited 0+ state to a 0+ ground state.
> Although there is no radiation field for this transition beyond r > R, at r
> < R (i.e., inside the nucleus) there is a monopole distribution where the
> potential does fluctuate, and this is what is sampled by the electron.  I
> take from this that the electron will not feel anything outside of the
> nuclear volume since the E0 radiation field cancels out at r > R. (Here
> we've started to venture beyond my understanding of the topic.)
>
> Eric
>
Honestly, I'm pretty weak when it comes to nuclear physics. I have the
tools to understand it but are in practice ignorant. But I have a comment.
I view Mills theory as a steady state theory. If the nucleus is in a
transition state
one could imagine that the nice and clean setup is broken and the
constraints you poses are no longer valid e.g. the fields inside the
nucleus can communicate EM wise with the inner electrons.
/Stefan

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Good question, as I understand there is standing wave fields between the
> shells so the volume is indeed filled up electromagnetically couldn't this
> explain what you are after.
>

The volume in question here is the nuclear volume and not the atomic
volume, where the electrons reside.  In the case of a 0+ to 0+ transition,
my copy of Krane's Introductory Nuclear Physics says that this is an
electric monopole transition (E0), and it can happen when an even-even
nucleus transitions from an excited 0+ state to a 0+ ground state.
Although there is no radiation field for this transition beyond r > R, at r
< R (i.e., inside the nucleus) there is a monopole distribution where the
potential does fluctuate, and this is what is sampled by the electron.  I
take from this that the electron will not feel anything outside of the
nuclear volume since the E0 radiation field cancels out at r > R. (Here
we've started to venture beyond my understanding of the topic.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

The end result is that you get a 6 digit match between calculated and
> meassured ionisation energy for Hydrogene and similar accuracy for the one
> electron ions.
>

I assume this a claim that goes back to the BLP promotional literature.
Have you had a chance to verify the calculation?

Another followup question: since the electrons inhabit concentric
orbitspheres of infinitesimal thickness about the nuclear volume, does this
imply that they never spend time in the nuclear volume?  If so, how is one
to understand internal conversion?

As you know, internal conversion is a process that competes with gamma
emission.  In some transitions, there is a high likelihood that an orbital
electron will be ejected from the atom with a characteristic decay energy
that will in other cases be imparted to a gamma photon.  In some cases
gamma emission is "forbidden" by the change in angular momentum from the
parent to the daughter daughter nucleus, as happens in a 0+ to 0+
transition.  In this case less than 1 unit of angular momentum is
available, which is needed for a photon, and so instead the energy is
imparted to an inner shell electron in the atom, which is then kicked out.
 (Once the electron is ejected, a characteristic x-rays is emitted as the
orbital is refilled.)  The understanding is that this happens because, due
to the three-dimensional nature of the electron orbitals, going back to the
spherical harmonics, electrons spend part of their time in the nuclear
volume and "sample" it.  How does this description change once we've
received Mills's teachings?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The end result is that you get a 6 digit match between calculated and
>> meassured ionisation energy for Hydrogene and similar accuracy for the one
>> electron ions.
>>
>
> I assume this a claim that goes back to the BLP promotional literature.
> Have you had a chance to verify the calculation?
>

No I have only found that Mills it is right to 3 decimal places as
explained in the answer to Bob earlier. Reduced mass is still a mystery to
me and I tried to make a small effort
above to introduce it. I'm really not sure about it though.


> Another followup question: since the electrons inhabit concentric
> orbitspheres of infinitesimal thickness about the nuclear volume, does this
> imply that they never spend time in the nuclear volume?  If so, how is one
> to understand internal conversion?
>
There is a photon field as well, that marks itself in Ylm source terms that
sums to zero on the shell, I think that my suggestion of photon field in
the link presented earlier in the thread does show that the photon field
does not
produce any static field outside the orbitsphere. Mills does this
differently though in GUTCP and there is static forces outside the atom
which is not commented on by him, it is radially zero though.


> As you know, internal conversion is a process that competes with gamma
> emission.  In some transitions, there is a high likelihood that an orbital
> electron will be ejected from the atom with a characteristic decay energy
> that will in other cases be imparted to a gamma photon.  In some cases
> gamma emission is "forbidden" by the change in angular momentum from the
> parent to the daughter daughter nucleus, as happens in a 0+ to 0+
> transition.  In this case less than 1 unit of angular momentum is
> available, which is needed for a photon, and so instead the energy is
> imparted to an inner shell electron in the atom, which is then kicked out.
>  (Once the electron is ejected, a characteristic x-rays is emitted as the
> orbital is refilled.)  The understanding is that this happens because, due
> to the three-dimensional nature of the electron orbitals, going back to the
> spherical harmonics, electrons spend part of their time in the nuclear
> volume and "sample" it.  How does this description change once we've
> received Mills's teachings?
>

Good question, as I understand there is standing wave fields between the
shells so the volume is indeed filled up electromagnetically couldn't this
explain what you are after.


> Eric
>
>
/Stefan

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In the model of infinitesimally thin orbitspheres with a charge
>> distribution >described by spherical harmonics, how does Mills account for
>> electron >degeneracy levels?  Are they explained by having several
>> orbitspheres >coexisting simultaneously at the same radius?  If the radius
>> of each >orbitsphere is distinct, how are degeneracy levels explained?
>>
>> I do believe that the orthogonallity is behind Mills approach as well,
>> the traped photons Is of the nature jl Ylm exp(iwt). then at the radius r,
>> the bessel jl is zero and the outside has zero electrical potential due to
>> a boundary condition of the form C*Ylm*exp(iwt) on  the sphere.
>>
>
> I understand you to be saying that in Mills there are degenerate
> orbitspheres to account for the degenerate electron energy levels known in
> mainstream chemistry.  I also understand the above to mean that, in your
> understanding, several orbitspheres sometimes coexist at the same radius
> but are orthogonal to one another (in a purely mathematical sense) to allow
> this degeneracy.
>

This is how I understand it


> A followup question: are there similarly degenerate electron levels below
> the ground state, where there are several orbitspheres at the same radius?
> If not, why not?
>
I have not looked much at the hydrinos so I don't know - it does look like
GUTCP is a bit to low on details for this in my current understanding.

I would like to add to this discussion an observation.

In Mills radii calculation for hydrogene the reduced mass is used. There is
a potential interesting argument behind the reduced mass that has
implication on ideas of cold fusion.

To reconcile:
Mills constructs the electron field as a network of uniform current-loops
that yield the correct spin and a charge distribution and mass, these loops
are all geodesics on the sphere.

If we assume that there is a similar matching geodesic at the nucleus, and
if we assume that a small segment at this loop shall match a similar
segment in the nucleus loop and try to balance this as much as possible we
get that the nucleus is a spherical object with radii of the distance from
the mass centrum to the nucleus if we assume a two body setup and the
radius of the electron shell is the distance from the electron to the mass
centrum in a two
body interaction. By matching the electrical force on a segment on the
electron shell with the momentum of the current we get a the expression
Mills have for the hydrogene atom and one electron ions. When calculating
the ionisation energies one need to add the effect of removing the electron
and shrinking the nucleus size, maybe that will be the same or very similar
to the ionization calculation that mills is doing. It is exactly the same
if we do this
ionization analysis on each pairing, but it's unclear if it is true
globally. The end result is that you get a 6 digit match between calculated
and meassured ionisation energy for Hydrogene and similar accuracy for the
one electron ions. An interesting thing is that this enlargement of the
nucleus is seen for one electron atoms you don't get it when you have two
electrons because the matching is a three body and the system balances
quite well. Also this indicates that the cross section of the nucleus can
be larger then expected by normal theory. At least this is my speculation
from trying to make sense of GUTCP and the cold fusion indications we have.
It would be nice if the list could chime in with some experimental
evidences that could shoot this idea down, I don't know the subject well
enough to have a say about the reality of this idea - it's just a
consequence of my struggle to understand theory.

Regards
Stefan

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

>In the model of infinitesimally thin orbitspheres with a charge
> distribution >described by spherical harmonics, how does Mills account for
> electron >degeneracy levels?  Are they explained by having several
> orbitspheres >coexisting simultaneously at the same radius?  If the radius
> of each >orbitsphere is distinct, how are degeneracy levels explained?
>
> I do believe that the orthogonallity is behind Mills approach as well, the
> traped photons Is of the nature jl Ylm exp(iwt). then at the radius r, the
> bessel jl is zero and the outside has zero electrical potential due to a
> boundary condition of the form C*Ylm*exp(iwt) on  the sphere.
>

I understand you to be saying that in Mills there are degenerate
orbitspheres to account for the degenerate electron energy levels known in
mainstream chemistry.  I also understand the above to mean that, in your
understanding, several orbitspheres sometimes coexist at the same radius
but are orthogonal to one another (in a purely mathematical sense) to allow
this degeneracy.

A followup question: are there similarly degenerate electron levels below
the ground state, where there are several orbitspheres at the same radius?
If not, why not?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

Yes I agree that non radiation is not the only thing and can have multiple
solutions - but it's a hint to narrow down the possibilities.

1. There is a photon traped inside that is kept there in a standing wave
and this is maintained with a time dependant sources in maxwell equatiions.
The only such sources, if we assume time dependance of exp(iwt), is sum
a(m,p)Ylm exp(piwt), p = +1 or -1 the radii of the sphere times |w| must
match a zero in spherical bessel j_l.

2. You need to be able to match meassured ionization energies

3. You need to nullify the electric field

4. the currents amd charge distribution needs to match the spin of the
electron - this will give you the nessesary current magnitude.

5. If you consider solid state objects a very normal deviation is cracks
and 2 dimensional interfaces - why not attribute a interface to matter.


On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:03 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> There is no reason for the sphere to be infinitesimally thin if far field
> radiation null is the only driving force.   You can even have variation in
> the thickness at various locations throughout its volume.  It merely needs
> to be distributed so that no changing accumulation of charges over it
> surface occurs with time.
>
> I further propose that various regions of the spatially distributed charge
> can undergo differential acceleration provided that there is no change to
> the accumulation of charge allowed at any location.
>
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Sun, Oct 11, 2015 4:40 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies
>
> Eric Walker said:
> "
> The orbitsphere is proposed to be an infinitesimally thin sphere of
> circulating current.  The overlaying of spherical harmonics on top of this
> sphere seems to imply one of:
>
>- The sphere is not infinitesimally thin and instead can vary in
>thickness, and the accumulation of charge results in a thicker segment of
>sphere.
>- The sphere is in fact infinitesimally thin, and the charge is
>represented by a vibration of the surface of the sphere in a standing mode
>(in which case the sphere is only approximately a sphere).
>- The sphere is in fact infinitesimally thin, and the charge
>accumulation occurs in a hidden dimension.
>
> Do you agree?
> "
> If you magnify it large enough I'm sure you will see some structure, maybe
> a thickness. But to a practical approximation I think a zero thickness is
> fine.
> I believe that what matter is is a singular artifact due to nonlinear
> behavior in space. A nonlinearity that needs to be added to Maxwell. How
> this nonlinearity
> behaves is unknown but what it does is to produce a crack or surface which
> can be sustained and stable under the right circumstances. Now if you want
> to
> add this singularity you need to add a distribution field as source terms
> on a surface to Maxwell and the most simple such distribution is a delta
> messure on the surface.
> What we know about this source term is that it does not radiate and from
> there MIlls produces GUTCP. Note that what it may be is just a mathematical
> correction
> that feels like a bunch of charges with mass etc is what we would like to
> visualize this as. But math is ruthless, nothing in the charge field or
> current fields could be
> attributed to physical quantities, it's just a mathematical correction
> with some properties, the result of this at a higher level creates our
> physical world where we get
> our intuition for, but that intuition may not return back to the basic
> building blocks - that's a circular argument. But sure the math also
> suggest that we actually have
> a thickness - just that it ain't certain. The only way to really know this
> is to actually find a model of the non linearities of the world and see
> what you get. Until then
> you may be right or you may be wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
>> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No it is not arbritary. It is a simple matter to prove that these charge
>>> distribution would lead to non radiation for certain internal standing
>>> waves.
>>>
>>
>> The orbitsphere is proposed to be an infinitesimally thin sphere of
>> circulating current.  The overlaying of spherical harmonics on top of this
>> sphere seems to imply one of:
>>
>>- The sphere is not infinitesimally thin and instead can vary in
>&

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

Eric walker said:

> Is this your thinking, or does this go back to Mills?
Mills is not participating in discussions of these questions as far as I
know.
I asked and got a few insights in what the nature of matter could be and
then
draw my own conclusions which I find logical.

>Also, the standard geometrical interpretation of spherical harmonics in
>quantum mechanics provides a ready understanding of electron >degeneracy
levels (levels in which several electrons have nearly the same >energy and
occupy the same shell).  This is because for shells such as p >and d, the
different subshells are each orthogonal to one another.

true

>In the model of infinitesimally thin orbitspheres with a charge
distribution >described by spherical harmonics, how does Mills account for
electron >degeneracy levels?  Are they explained by having several
orbitspheres >coexisting simultaneously at the same radius?  If the radius
of each >orbitsphere is distinct, how are degeneracy levels explained?

I do believe that the orthogonallity is behind Mills approach as well, the
traped photons Is of the nature jl Ylm exp(iwt). then at the radius r, the
bessel jl is zero and the outside has zero electrical potential due to a
boundary condition of the form C*Ylm*exp(iwt) on  the sphere. So similarly
to QM you get an orthogonality between the subshells due to Ylm is
orthogonal for different m. GUTCP is very wage on these matters I would
say. My linked pdf does the math behind my argument though. This indicates
a more direct reason why you don't have radiation.

I have not gotten to understand Mills calculation for higher order shells.
I've only poked around it at a higher level enogh to find it interesting
e.g. there is patterns that seam to give good estimates for ionisation
energies. My conclusion though is that GUTCP may be over tinkered with -
especially for the second p shell atoms and beond.


On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you magnify it large enough I'm sure you will see some structure, maybe
>> a thickness. But to a practical approximation I think a zero thickness is
>> fine.
>> I believe that what matter is is a singular artifact due to nonlinear
>> behavior in space. A nonlinearity that needs to be added to Maxwell. How
>> this nonlinearity behaves is unknown but what it does is to produce a
>> crack or surface which can be sustained and stable under the right
>> circumstances. Now if you want to add this singularity you need to add a
>> distribution field as source terms on a surface to Maxwell and the most
>> simple such distribution is a delta messure on the surface.
>>
>
> Is this your thinking, or does this go back to Mills?
>
> Also, the standard geometrical interpretation of spherical harmonics in
> quantum mechanics provides a ready understanding of electron degeneracy
> levels (levels in which several electrons have nearly the same energy and
> occupy the same shell).  This is because for shells such as p and d, the
> different subshells are each orthogonal to one another.
>
> In the model of infinitesimally thin orbitspheres with a charge
> distribution described by spherical harmonics, how does Mills account for
> electron degeneracy levels?  Are they explained by having several
> orbitspheres coexisting simultaneously at the same radius?  If the radius
> of each orbitsphere is distinct, how are degeneracy levels explained?
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Bob Higgins]

I presume that you guys are also integrating into your thought in this
thread, the paper written 13-July-1964 in Physical Review, Vol. 135, No.
1B, "Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for
Quantum Theory", by G. H. Goedecke from New Mexico State University.  My
understanding is that this paper was one of the foundations upon which
Mills built his GUTCP.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Eric walker said:
>
> > Is this your thinking, or does this go back to Mills?
> Mills is not participating in discussions of these questions as far as I
> know.
> I asked and got a few insights in what the nature of matter could be and
> then
> draw my own conclusions which I find logical.
>
> >Also, the standard geometrical interpretation of spherical harmonics in
> >quantum mechanics provides a ready understanding of electron >degeneracy
> levels (levels in which several electrons have nearly the same >energy and
> occupy the same shell).  This is because for shells such as p >and d, the
> different subshells are each orthogonal to one another.
>
> true
>
> >In the model of infinitesimally thin orbitspheres with a charge
> distribution >described by spherical harmonics, how does Mills account for
> electron >degeneracy levels?  Are they explained by having several
> orbitspheres >coexisting simultaneously at the same radius?  If the radius
> of each >orbitsphere is distinct, how are degeneracy levels explained?
>
> I do believe that the orthogonallity is behind Mills approach as well, the
> traped photons Is of the nature jl Ylm exp(iwt). then at the radius r, the
> bessel jl is zero and the outside has zero electrical potential due to a
> boundary condition of the form C*Ylm*exp(iwt) on  the sphere. So similarly
> to QM you get an orthogonality between the subshells due to Ylm is
> orthogonal for different m. GUTCP is very wage on these matters I would
> say. My linked pdf does the math behind my argument though. This indicates
> a more direct reason why you don't have radiation.
>
> I have not gotten to understand Mills calculation for higher order shells.
> I've only poked around it at a higher level enogh to find it interesting
> e.g. there is patterns that seam to give good estimates for ionisation
> energies. My conclusion though is that GUTCP may be over tinkered with -
> especially for the second p shell atoms and beond.
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
>> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you magnify it large enough I'm sure you will see some structure,
>>> maybe a thickness. But to a practical approximation I think a zero
>>> thickness is fine.
>>> I believe that what matter is is a singular artifact due to nonlinear
>>> behavior in space. A nonlinearity that needs to be added to Maxwell. How
>>> this nonlinearity behaves is unknown but what it does is to produce a
>>> crack or surface which can be sustained and stable under the right
>>> circumstances. Now if you want to add this singularity you need to add
>>> a distribution field as source terms on a surface to Maxwell and the most
>>> simple such distribution is a delta messure on the surface.
>>>
>>
>> Is this your thinking, or does this go back to Mills?
>>
>> Also, the standard geometrical interpretation of spherical harmonics in
>> quantum mechanics provides a ready understanding of electron degeneracy
>> levels (levels in which several electrons have nearly the same energy and
>> occupy the same shell).  This is because for shells such as p and d, the
>> different subshells are each orthogonal to one another.
>>
>> In the model of infinitesimally thin orbitspheres with a charge
>> distribution described by spherical harmonics, how does Mills account for
>> electron degeneracy levels?  Are they explained by having several
>> orbitspheres coexisting simultaneously at the same radius?  If the radius
>> of each orbitsphere is distinct, how are degeneracy levels explained?
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

> If I understand this, it appears to be the orbitsphere with differential
charge density across the surface of the sphere.  I have seen a few
diagrams in Blacklight's promotional literature to this effect.  It appears
to be an ad hoc
> modification to account for something that was lost when Mills set aside
the geometric form of spherical harmonics and went with a sphere.
No it is not arbritary. It is a simple matter to prove that these charge
distribution would lead to non radiation for certain internal standing
waves. Mills derivation is overly complex
just use the expansion of exp(i k x) in sperical harmonics and the
orthogonality of the spherical harmonics. You will then see that
essentially these are the only valid
charge distribution that allow a standing em wave that will not radiate for
certain combination of w and r.

> I don't take issue QM.  I take issue with orbitspheres.  You are a
proponent of Mills's theory, and you are using spherical harmonics.  I'm
trying to better understand this situation.
Ok, try read:
c-lambda.se/maxwell.pdf

You will see that spherical harmonics is natural and also it is actually
used all over the places in GUTCP, e.g. for calculation
of atoms with higher order shells.

> In addition to the idea that you are seeking feedback on (which I don't
weigh in on here), an important question is whether Mills's theory is
self-consistent and consistent with the experimental evidence.  I'm trying
to probe this
> somewhat unrelated question.  Discussion threads on Vortex are allowed to
go all over the place.
Ok, I validated that non radiaiton is correct and that the ionisation
energies for hydrogen and one electorn atoms are correct if you don't count
the mass correction which really looks like hokus pokus and the derivation
don't add up in GUTCP.

I find that GUTCP a bit too creative many times but it's creative, there
are strange argument but the conclusions seam to bare
truth if you work hard and explain it too yourself sidesteping what Mills
is saying. Actually sometimes I tend to get a feeling that
the whole thing is obfuscated.

Regards
Stefan





On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Now really what you have in Mills is Re(Ylm(e)exp(iwt) but that means that
>> this photon field inside
>> the orbitsphere is a standing wave.
>>
>
> If I understand this, it appears to be the orbitsphere with differential
> charge density across the surface of the sphere.  I have seen a few
> diagrams in Blacklight's promotional literature to this effect.  It appears
> to be an ad hoc modification to account for something that was lost when
> Mills set aside the geometric form of spherical harmonics and went with a
> sphere.
>
> The nucleus is a more complex setup of EM + boundary conditions. Not sure
>> that you could rule out
>> a spherical wave.
>>
>
> Yes.  Nuclei can have spherical waves (s-waves), and many other kinds of
> waves (p, d, etc.).
>
> Also forget Mills, use QM if you don't like it.
>>
>
> I don't take issue QM.  I take issue with orbitspheres.  You are a
> proponent of Mills's theory, and you are using spherical harmonics.  I'm
> trying to better understand this situation.
>
> Smell it and tell me what you don't like or like about it - the mills
>> versus QM, is really of less importance here
>>
>
> In addition to the idea that you are seeking feedback on (which I don't
> weigh in on here), an important question is whether Mills's theory is
> self-consistent and consistent with the experimental evidence.  I'm trying
> to probe this somewhat unrelated question.  Discussion threads on Vortex
> are allowed to go all over the place.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

Eric Walker said:
"
The orbitsphere is proposed to be an infinitesimally thin sphere of
circulating current.  The overlaying of spherical harmonics on top of this
sphere seems to imply one of:

   - The sphere is not infinitesimally thin and instead can vary in
   thickness, and the accumulation of charge results in a thicker segment of
   sphere.
   - The sphere is in fact infinitesimally thin, and the charge is
   represented by a vibration of the surface of the sphere in a standing mode
   (in which case the sphere is only approximately a sphere).
   - The sphere is in fact infinitesimally thin, and the charge
   accumulation occurs in a hidden dimension.

Do you agree?
"
If you magnify it large enough I'm sure you will see some structure, maybe
a thickness. But to a practical approximation I think a zero thickness is
fine.
I believe that what matter is is a singular artifact due to nonlinear
behavior in space. A nonlinearity that needs to be added to Maxwell. How
this nonlinearity
behaves is unknown but what it does is to produce a crack or surface which
can be sustained and stable under the right circumstances. Now if you want
to
add this singularity you need to add a distribution field as source terms
on a surface to Maxwell and the most simple such distribution is a delta
messure on the surface.
What we know about this source term is that it does not radiate and from
there MIlls produces GUTCP. Note that what it may be is just a mathematical
correction
that feels like a bunch of charges with mass etc is what we would like to
visualize this as. But math is ruthless, nothing in the charge field or
current fields could be
attributed to physical quantities, it's just a mathematical correction with
some properties, the result of this at a higher level creates our physical
world where we get
our intuition for, but that intuition may not return back to the basic
building blocks - that's a circular argument. But sure the math also
suggest that we actually have
a thickness - just that it ain't certain. The only way to really know this
is to actually find a model of the non linearities of the world and see
what you get. Until then
you may be right or you may be wrong.






On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No it is not arbritary. It is a simple matter to prove that these charge
>> distribution would lead to non radiation for certain internal standing
>> waves.
>>
>
> The orbitsphere is proposed to be an infinitesimally thin sphere of
> circulating current.  The overlaying of spherical harmonics on top of this
> sphere seems to imply one of:
>
>- The sphere is not infinitesimally thin and instead can vary in
>thickness, and the accumulation of charge results in a thicker segment of
>sphere.
>- The sphere is in fact infinitesimally thin, and the charge is
>represented by a vibration of the surface of the sphere in a standing mode
>(in which case the sphere is only approximately a sphere).
>- The sphere is in fact infinitesimally thin, and the charge
>accumulation occurs in a hidden dimension.
>
> Do you agree?
>
> Actually sometimes I tend to get a feeling that the whole thing is
>> obfuscated.
>>
>
> Me too.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Eric Walker]

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

No it is not arbritary. It is a simple matter to prove that these charge
> distribution would lead to non radiation for certain internal standing
> waves.
>

The orbitsphere is proposed to be an infinitesimally thin sphere of
circulating current.  The overlaying of spherical harmonics on top of this
sphere seems to imply one of:

   - The sphere is not infinitesimally thin and instead can vary in
   thickness, and the accumulation of charge results in a thicker segment of
   sphere.
   - The sphere is in fact infinitesimally thin, and the charge is
   represented by a vibration of the surface of the sphere in a standing mode
   (in which case the sphere is only approximately a sphere).
   - The sphere is in fact infinitesimally thin, and the charge
   accumulation occurs in a hidden dimension.

Do you agree?

Actually sometimes I tend to get a feeling that the whole thing is
> obfuscated.
>

Me too.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

If you magnify it large enough I'm sure you will see some structure, maybe
> a thickness. But to a practical approximation I think a zero thickness is
> fine.
> I believe that what matter is is a singular artifact due to nonlinear
> behavior in space. A nonlinearity that needs to be added to Maxwell. How
> this nonlinearity behaves is unknown but what it does is to produce a
> crack or surface which can be sustained and stable under the right
> circumstances. Now if you want to add this singularity you need to add a
> distribution field as source terms on a surface to Maxwell and the most
> simple such distribution is a delta messure on the surface.
>

Is this your thinking, or does this go back to Mills?

Also, the standard geometrical interpretation of spherical harmonics in
quantum mechanics provides a ready understanding of electron degeneracy
levels (levels in which several electrons have nearly the same energy and
occupy the same shell).  This is because for shells such as p and d, the
different subshells are each orthogonal to one another.

In the model of infinitesimally thin orbitspheres with a charge
distribution described by spherical harmonics, how does Mills account for
electron degeneracy levels?  Are they explained by having several
orbitspheres coexisting simultaneously at the same radius?  If the radius
of each orbitsphere is distinct, how are degeneracy levels explained?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[David Roberson]

There is no reason for the sphere to be infinitesimally thin if far field 
radiation null is the only driving force.   You can even have variation in the 
thickness at various locations throughout its volume.  It merely needs to be 
distributed so that no changing accumulation of charges over it surface occurs 
with time.

I further propose that various regions of the spatially distributed charge can 
undergo differential acceleration provided that there is no change to the 
accumulation of charge allowed at any location.

 

 Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Oct 11, 2015 4:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies



Eric Walker said:
"
The orbitsphere is proposed to be an infinitesimally thin sphere of circulating 
current.  The overlaying of spherical harmonics on top of this sphere seems to 
imply one of:

The sphere is not infinitesimally thin and instead can vary in thickness, and 
the accumulation of charge results in a thicker segment of sphere.
The sphere is in fact infinitesimally thin, and the charge is represented by a 
vibration of the surface of the sphere in a standing mode (in which case the 
sphere is only approximately a sphere).
The sphere is in fact infinitesimally thin, and the charge accumulation occurs 
in a hidden dimension.

Do you agree?
"
If you magnify it large enough I'm sure you will see some structure, maybe a 
thickness. But to a practical approximation I think a zero thickness is fine.
I believe that what matter is is a singular artifact due to nonlinear behavior 
in space. A nonlinearity that needs to be added to Maxwell. How this 
nonlinearity
behaves is unknown but what it does is to produce a crack or surface which can 
be sustained and stable under the right circumstances. Now if you want to
add this singularity you need to add a distribution field as source terms on a 
surface to Maxwell and the most simple such distribution is a delta messure on 
the surface.
What we know about this source term is that it does not radiate and from there 
MIlls produces GUTCP. Note that what it may be is just a mathematical correction
that feels like a bunch of charges with mass etc is what we would like to 
visualize this as. But math is ruthless, nothing in the charge field or current 
fields could be
attributed to physical quantities, it's just a mathematical correction with 
some properties, the result of this at a higher level creates our physical 
world where we get
our intuition for, but that intuition may not return back to the basic building 
blocks - that's a circular argument. But sure the math also suggest that we 
actually have
a thickness - just that it ain't certain. The only way to really know this is 
to actually find a model of the non linearities of the world and see what you 
get. Until then
you may be right or you may be wrong.













On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:


Hi,


On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
<stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:



No it is not arbritary. It is a simple matter to prove that these charge 
distribution would lead to non radiation for certain internal standing waves.



The orbitsphere is proposed to be an infinitesimally thin sphere of circulating 
current.  The overlaying of spherical harmonics on top of this sphere seems to 
imply one of:

The sphere is not infinitesimally thin and instead can vary in thickness, and 
the accumulation of charge results in a thicker segment of sphere.
The sphere is in fact infinitesimally thin, and the charge is represented by a 
vibration of the surface of the sphere in a standing mode (in which case the 
sphere is only approximately a sphere).
The sphere is in fact infinitesimally thin, and the charge accumulation occurs 
in a hidden dimension.

Do you agree?



Actually sometimes I tend to get a feeling that the whole thing is obfuscated.




Me too.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[David Roberson]

It is quite easy to produce orbital shapes that do not radiate.  All that is 
required is for the charge to be evenly distributed instead of localized, like 
a planet around the sun.  Spheres are not necessary at all and even a single 
smooth loop of  electron charge rotating around a nucleus will not radiate.   
The loop does not need to be circular to meet that simple requirement.

It amazes me that so much emphasis is placed upon the non radiation factor 
since there are an infinite number of ways to achieve it.  One issue that is 
important is that the charge distribution must be smooth and not quantized into 
small segments.  If you attempt to break the smooth charge into individual 
small spaced out portions then some radiation will escape.  You can visualize 
the non radiating source as being a balanced null of the individual radiating 
fields emitted by an infinite number of infinitesimal charges.

Another way to ensure the balance is to force the charge distribution to remain 
constant when viewed from any far external location.   This means that you can 
not allow charge to accumulate or dissipate with time at any location assumed 
for the orbit sphere.  This is merely another way of saying that the charge 
currents must be smooth, constant, and continuous at every point.

It should be understood that a steady magnetic field can readily be produced by 
a charge distribution of the sort that I am describing even though no far field 
radiation is emitted.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Oct 11, 2015 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies



> If I understand this, it appears to be the orbitsphere with differential 
> charge density across the surface of the sphere.  I have seen a few diagrams 
> in Blacklight's promotional literature to this effect.  It appears to be an 
> ad hoc 
> modification to account for something that was lost when Mills set aside the 
> geometric form of spherical harmonics and went with a sphere.
No it is not arbritary. It is a simple matter to prove that these charge 
distribution would lead to non radiation for certain internal standing waves. 
Mills derivation is overly complex
just use the expansion of exp(i k x) in sperical harmonics and the 
orthogonality of the spherical harmonics. You will then see that essentially 
these are the only valid
charge distribution that allow a standing em wave that will not radiate for 
certain combination of w and r.


> I don't take issue QM.  I take issue with orbitspheres.  You are a proponent 
> of Mills's theory, and you are using spherical harmonics.  I'm trying to 
> better understand this situation.

Ok, try read:
c-lambda.se/maxwell.pdf


You will see that spherical harmonics is natural and also it is actually used 
all over the places in GUTCP, e.g. for calculation
of atoms with higher order shells.


> In addition to the idea that you are seeking feedback on (which I don't weigh 
> in on here), an important question is whether Mills's theory is 
> self-consistent and consistent with the experimental evidence.  I'm trying to 
> probe this 
> somewhat unrelated question.  Discussion threads on Vortex are allowed to go 
> all over the place.

Ok, I validated that non radiaiton is correct and that the ionisation energies 
for hydrogen and one electorn atoms are correct if you don't count
the mass correction which really looks like hokus pokus and the derivation 
don't add up in GUTCP.


I find that GUTCP a bit too creative many times but it's creative, there are 
strange argument but the conclusions seam to bare
truth if you work hard and explain it too yourself sidesteping what Mills is 
saying. Actually sometimes I tend to get a feeling that 
the whole thing is obfuscated.


Regards
Stefan











On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
<stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:



Now really what you have in Mills is Re(Ylm(e)exp(iwt) but that means that this 
photon field inside
the orbitsphere is a standing wave.



If I understand this, it appears to be the orbitsphere with differential charge 
density across the surface of the sphere.  I have seen a few diagrams in 
Blacklight's promotional literature to this effect.  It appears to be an ad hoc 
modification to account for something that was lost when Mills set aside the 
geometric form of spherical harmonics and went with a sphere.



The nucleus is a more complex setup of EM + boundary conditions. Not sure that 
you could rule out 

a spherical wave.



Yes.  Nuclei can have spherical waves (s-waves), and many other kinds of waves 
(p, d, etc.).



Also forget Mills, use QM if you don't like it.



I don't take issue QM.  I take issue with orbitspheres.  You are a prop

RE: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Jones Beene]

From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe 

*   Not sure that you could rule out a spherical wave. Who knows, but the 
fact is that the missing radiation is a mystery and I reckon that in a cold 
fusion event in a solid state, it sure is many orders of magnitude more 
spherical symmetric than hot fusion, that's sounds like a clue to me. 


A paper of interest related to the spherical wave (for spin energy release) 
involves so-called “skyrmion” bubbles… This sounds a bit like another 
verbalization of the magnon.

Editor's Summary of “Blowing magnetic skyrmion bubbles” by Jiang et al.

The formation of soap bubbles from thin films is accompanied by topological 
transitions. Here we show how a magnetic topological structure, a skyrmion 
bubble, can be generated in a solid-state system in a similar manner. 

Using an inhomogeneous in-plane current in a system with broken inversion 
symmetry, we experimentally “blow” magnetic skyrmion bubbles from a geometrical 
constriction. The presence of a spatially divergent spin-orbit torque gives 
rise to instabilities of the magnetic domain structures that are reminiscent of 
Rayleigh-Plateau instabilities in fluid flows. We determine a phase diagram for 
skyrmion formation and reveal the efficient manipulation of these dynamically 
created skyrmions, including depinning and motion. The demonstrated 
current-driven transformation from stripe domains to magnetic skyrmion bubbles 
could lead to progress in skyrmion-based spintronics.

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

Now really what you have in Mills is Re(Ylm(e)exp(iwt) but that means that
> this photon field inside
> the orbitsphere is a standing wave.
>

If I understand this, it appears to be the orbitsphere with differential
charge density across the surface of the sphere.  I have seen a few
diagrams in Blacklight's promotional literature to this effect.  It appears
to be an ad hoc modification to account for something that was lost when
Mills set aside the geometric form of spherical harmonics and went with a
sphere.

The nucleus is a more complex setup of EM + boundary conditions. Not sure
> that you could rule out
> a spherical wave.
>

Yes.  Nuclei can have spherical waves (s-waves), and many other kinds of
waves (p, d, etc.).

Also forget Mills, use QM if you don't like it.
>

I don't take issue QM.  I take issue with orbitspheres.  You are a
proponent of Mills's theory, and you are using spherical harmonics.  I'm
trying to better understand this situation.

Smell it and tell me what you don't like or like about it - the mills
> versus QM, is really of less importance here
>

In addition to the idea that you are seeking feedback on (which I don't
weigh in on here), an important question is whether Mills's theory is
self-consistent and consistent with the experimental evidence.  I'm trying
to probe this somewhat unrelated question.  Discussion threads on Vortex
are allowed to go all over the place.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

No

The traped photon scalar potential, could be described as

j_l(r w / c) Ylm(e) exp(iwt)

if at the orbitsphere r w / c equal 0, then he adds a source terns of the
form

C Ylm(e) exp(iwt)

to the scalar field equation and the outer part of the orbitsphere has zero
scalar potential field
(the static parts also cancelling)

Now really what you have in Mills is Re(Ylm(e)exp(iwt) but that means that
this photon field inside
the orbitsphere is a standing wave.

The nucleus is a more complex setup of EM + boundary conditions. Not sure
that you could rule out
a spherical wave. Who knows, but the fact is that the missing radiation is
a mystery and I recon
that in a cold fusion event in a solid state, it sure is many orders of
magnitude more spherical symmetric
than hot fusion, that's sounds like a clue to me. Also forget Mills, use QM
if you don't like it. My argument
is based in sound physical principles that is independent of math details.
Of cause a spherical wave may
be hard to melt and possibly un-physical. But we are here to fart ideas to
each other. Smell it and tell me what
you don't like or like about it - the mills versus QM, is really of less
importance here

Regards
Stefan



On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> j_l(|w|/c r)Ylm(e)exp(iwt), with e the spherical part of x, and r the
>> radial part.
>
>
> Here you are using spherical harmonics -- Ylm(e).  These are implicitly
> disavowed by Mills, who offers instead the orbitsphere.  You have suggested
> in the past that there could be a duality that will resolve this
> conundrum.  I hope you will continue to give thought to the matter.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Eric Walker]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

j_l(|w|/c r)Ylm(e)exp(iwt), with e the spherical part of x, and r the
> radial part.


Here you are using spherical harmonics -- Ylm(e).  These are implicitly
disavowed by Mills, who offers instead the orbitsphere.  You have suggested
in the past that there could be a duality that will resolve this
conundrum.  I hope you will continue to give thought to the matter.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

> This may apply to the Lipinski/ Unified Gravity theory and experiments. This
is the group that claims to have found a low energy window for lithium
fusion - around 200 eV.
Yes I think that my argument is independent on basic theory though and well
aligned with sound basic physical intuition which any theory need to match.
So
sorry for mentioning Mills, I think that any good theory would agree with
an aiming factor and that if we consider a system that increases the impact
energy at
each iteration in the end would reach a reaction at very small speed in
relation to all known accepted experiments that need to have a high speed
impact in order
to have a high enough cross ration. This is a really good argument for not
expecting the same radiation and would give an argument for why we don't
see much of
radiation in CF research. Maybe the energy is released through highly
spinning entities or whatnot. Why not (sorry for my ignorance)
 radiation through a EM field that is spherical of the form

j_l(|w|/c r)Ylm(e)exp(iwt), with e the spherical part of x, and r the
radial part.

centered around the cm in stead of a photon gamma? Which behaves much like
a very small particle.

Regards
Stefan



On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe
>
> Ø
>
> Ø   I think that Mills theory for two atom molecules can be used to
> explain an increase in cross-sections that I've not seen mentioned when
> discussing the recent notes from Louis DeChiaro.
>
> This may apply to the Lipinski/ Unified Gravity theory and experiments.
> This is the group that claims to have found a low energy window for
> lithium fusion - around 200 eV.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Jones Beene]

From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe 

*   
*   I think that Mills theory for two atom molecules can be used to explain 
an increase in cross-sections that I've not seen mentioned when discussing the 
recent notes from Louis DeChiaro.

This may apply to the Lipinski/ Unified Gravity theory and experiments. This is 
the group that claims to have found a low energy window for lithium fusion - 
around 200 eV. 

RE: [Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Jones Beene]

From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe 

 

Ø  This is a really good argument for not expecting the same radiation and 
would give an argument for why we don't see much of radiation in CF research. 
Maybe the energy is released through highly spinning entities or whatnot. Why 
not radiation through a EM field that is spherical… ?

 

Spin is one way – but suffers from the objection of spin quanta being 
comparatively meager relative to the amount of energy which must be shed.

Related to this is the magnon, which could be spherical:

http://www.physicspages.com/2013/04/07/magnetic-field-of-rotating-sphere-of-charge/

 

Another possibility is the disintegration of leptons which shed much of their 
mass-energy via neutrinos. The irony here is that LENR could be a system where 
-- when a kilowatt of power has been witnessed, a megawatt was actually shed… 
or something to that effect.

 

 

[Vo]:Cross section reduction at lower energies

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

I think that Mills theory for two atom molecules can be used to explain an
increase in
cross-sections that I've not seen mentioned when discussing the recent
notes from
Louis DeChiaro.

The short story is that one of the factors that demand such high energies
in standard theory
is that any small deflection from a perfect hit will deflect the trajectory
if the incoming nucleus is
at small energies, so you you not only need to overcome the energy barrier
to hit the target, you must also have such high momentum so that the
repulsion have less impact on the deflection.

What I can argue from reading Randell Mills GUTCP and perhaps one can copy
the idea over
to QM is that essentially the electron field and an interplay with angular
momentum enable a focusing effect of the incoming nucleus at lower energies
meaning that cross-section increases many orders of magnitude. If you then
consider a condensed matter you could realize that this aiming is aligning
the movements more and more for each oscillation and resulting in a nucleus
hit at high rate. Also note that for high energy hits are at large relative
speeds. But if we have
an aiming effect in condensed matter we tend to have much lower relative
speeds at an hit. Could this low relative hit mean that we have a more
spherical symmetric interaction and much more balance essentially enabling
other kinds of radiation phenomena then what is expected from high energy
fusion experiments. Remember most of our experience is at high energy
collisions.

What is this aiming. Well, as the nucleus approach the target the most
energy efficient electron distribution for the combined cluster is that of
a cigar or ellipsoid with the angular momentum axis along the long axis of
the ellipsoid. If the in-coming nucleus is missing the target we would
essentially get an angular momentum that is varying if we assumed the
minimal energy distribution if the electron field for each radial distance,
but the system preserve the angular momentum. So a less energetically
electron distribution must be the reality. In an oscillation the best
energetically period is
one that does a perfect hit e.g. there is a force that aims the nucleus to
align perfectly. At least that
is how I picture it myself the reality is more complex, but you get the
principle from my argument.

Enjoy!

Regards
Stefan