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

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jurg,

You state "In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton."
Since I believe that the proton is composed of relativistic leptons and
leptons of EM fields (expressed as photons?), you have presented something
that will take me time to examine. I hope to do so - eventually.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:22 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Andrew
>
>
> Just one thing:
>
> I assume that you mean the atom (including the bound electron) is neutral.
> If you mean that the bound electron (in its interaction with the nuclear
> Coulomb field) is uncharged EM field only, then this would be one of our
> incompatible assumptions. However, I am certainly looking at the
> interaction of its spin component and the electron orbit about a proton as
> a possible source of such fusion in the neutron. So we may not be that far
> apart.
>
>
> In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton. In fact we
> can derive the electron mass directly from the proton structure and also
> the electron g-factor can be derived from the proton mass metric. The later
> is very astonishing as it delivers a polygon of order 3 as a solution. If I
> add the Mills-Metric (2:2) for proper space time then the precision is as
> good as the measurement (12 digits  done in Maple).
>
> All nuclear flux is mutually bound by topological charge. As the electron
> gets added to the proton the flux "binding charge" is a joint production.
> As you may note, there cannot be opposite charge among two different EM
> flux topology as the EM mass binds (Lorenz force) not the charge. I know it
> will take time to reset your brain to "nucleus internal view" as it is the
> exact opposite we know from external EM theory.
>
> So not charge-charge defines the force  - EM bound by charge is the force.
> And never forget. A solution only works on a stable minimal Lagrangian
> surface what a (2,3) sphere never can be.
>
> It's all about thinking about the proper situation. It took me at least a
> year to understand it or even 3 years from the beginning - but I had to
> find everything. You can take the solution and start to reason about it.
> There is no doubt that the core of SOP will define the next level of basic
> physics.
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 29.04.2022 05:38, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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
> 

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

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Andrew


Just one thing:

I assume that you mean the atom (including the bound electron) is 
neutral. If you mean that the bound electron (in its interaction with 
the nuclear Coulomb field) is uncharged EM field only, then this would 
be one of our incompatible assumptions. However, I am certainly looking 
at the interaction of its spin component and the electron orbit about a 
proton as a possible source of such fusion in the neutron. So we may not 
be that far apart.



In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton. In fact 
we can derive the electron mass directly from the proton structure and 
also the electron g-factor can be derived from the proton mass metric. 
The later is very astonishing as it delivers a polygon of order 3 as a 
solution. If I add the Mills-Metric (2:2) for proper space time then the 
precision is as good as the measurement (12 digits  done in Maple).


All nuclear flux is mutually bound by topological charge. As the 
electron gets added to the proton the flux "binding charge" is a joint 
production. As you may note, there cannot be opposite charge among two 
different EM flux topology as the EM mass binds (Lorenz force) not the 
charge. I know it will take time to resent your brain to "nucleus 
internal view" as it is the exact opposite we know from external EM theory.


So not charge-charge defines the force  - EM bound by charge is the 
force. And never forget. A solution only works on a stable minimal 
Lagrangian surface what a (2,3) sphere never can be.


It's all about thinking about the proper situation. It took me at least 
a year to understand it or even 3 years from the beginning - but I had 
to find everything. You can take the solution and start to reason about 
it. There is no doubt that the core of SOP will define the next level of 
basic physics.


J.W.


On 29.04.2022 05:38, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:




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 

[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