Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:39:11 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:03 PM,  wrote:
>
>No. Mills proposes a pseudo charge that is different for different sized
>> orbitspheres, but is constant for any given size. IOW it only changes when
>> the
>> orbitsphere changes in size. However he also states that radiation can
>> occur
>> during such a change.
>>
>
>How does the discussion of the spherical harmonics, below, fit into this
>description?
>
>https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg105034.html
>
>I note that Stefan refers to a "traped photon scalar potential," but the
>context of the discussion at the time was the orbitsphere, which has
>charge. I came away with the impression that Stefan thought that the charge
>density varied across the surface of the orbitsphere according to
>Re[Ylm(e)exp(iwt)]. Perhaps he'll clarify what he had in mind.

So ask him?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:03 PM,  wrote:

No. Mills proposes a pseudo charge that is different for different sized
> orbitspheres, but is constant for any given size. IOW it only changes when
> the
> orbitsphere changes in size. However he also states that radiation can
> occur
> during such a change.
>

How does the discussion of the spherical harmonics, below, fit into this
description?

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg105034.html

I note that Stefan refers to a "traped photon scalar potential," but the
context of the discussion at the time was the orbitsphere, which has
charge. I came away with the impression that Stefan thought that the charge
density varied across the surface of the orbitsphere according to
Re[Ylm(e)exp(iwt)]. Perhaps he'll clarify what he had in mind.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:13:52 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:14 AM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>The bottom line is that it is easy to produce a non radiating structure of
>> any degree of complexity as long as the currents flowing within that
>> structure are constant.  An orbitsphere such as Mills appears to refer to
>> is a simple example.
>>
>
>Stefan Israelsson Tampe explained sometime back that the orbitsphere is
>characterized by a non-constant charge distribution in which the charge is
>proportional to the real value of one of the spherical harmonics:
>
This is a rewording of Mills claim that the pseudo charge is the cause of the
shrinking orbitsphere.


>https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg105034.html
>
>If Stefan is correct, it seems that Mills is proposing a current that
>varies along the surface of the orbitsphere, i.e., is not constant.

No. Mills proposes a pseudo charge that is different for different sized
orbitspheres, but is constant for any given size. IOW it only changes when the
orbitsphere changes in size. However he also states that radiation can occur
during such a change.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:14 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

The bottom line is that it is easy to produce a non radiating structure of
> any degree of complexity as long as the currents flowing within that
> structure are constant.  An orbitsphere such as Mills appears to refer to
> is a simple example.
>

Stefan Israelsson Tampe explained sometime back that the orbitsphere is
characterized by a non-constant charge distribution in which the charge is
proportional to the real value of one of the spherical harmonics:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg105034.html

If Stefan is correct, it seems that Mills is proposing a current that
varies along the surface of the orbitsphere, i.e., is not constant. Stefan
in a later email says that the non-radiation condition is not the only
requirement that must be met:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg105060.html

I mention this not because I was persuaded of anything by that thread, but
because it seems relevant to your thought experiment.  As an aside, it
seems to me that in such thought experiments a two-dimensional sheet of
current is not sufficient to explain other experimental observations. I am
of the impression that the current distribution that describes an electron
orbital must be three dimensional, varying with the radius.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[David Roberson]

A two dimensional surface current can also produce a three dimensional magnetic 
field pattern that does not radiate.   All that is required is that the current 
remain constant at every point within the surface if radiation must be avoided.

You can visualize atomic structures where atoms are bound by magnetic forces 
arising from the electron current distribution effecting the near fields if you 
stretch your imagination.   I would not be overly surprised to find that it is 
magnetic attraction instead or in cooperation with electric field forces that 
allow for the construction of covalent bonds.  After all, the movement of 
charges generates the magnetic fields that are evident throughout nature.

I would question the non constant charge distribution in time assumption 
concerning far field radiation balance.  You are left asking how high in 
frequency must the harmonics be tracked in order for the balance to exist?  
There are an infinite number of harmonics for any fundamental frequency that 
you choose.  What happens as you approach infinity, does the balance still 
occur?  With DC this is not a problem.

We are going to require a better understanding of Mills' theory before the non 
radiating, non-constant charge distribution is understood.  So far it has been 
my understanding that he can construct a complex sphere out of smaller loops 
which is consistent with what I am proposing.   I do not see how individual 
loops would be consistent with AC harmonic balancing in all directions.  After 
all, RF antennas can be built in this manner.

The balancing of the far field radiation pattern may not be the only 
requirement, but it is one of the main requirements.   If this is not achieved 
then energy will continue to leak from the electron into space until it finally 
reaches that state.

DC current distribution is also consistent with steady magnetic near fields.  
It is easy to see how the magnetic moment of an atom can be constructed in such 
a manner.  If you assume AC currents then there would be very little if any 
steady magnetic moments generated.  I suppose one could suggest a combination 
of DC and AC currents to overcome this particular problem but why is AC 
required at all?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 20, 2016 12:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!




On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:14 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


The bottom line is that it is easy to produce a non radiating structure of any 
degree of complexity as long as the currents flowing within that structure are 
constant.  An orbitsphere such as Mills appears to refer to is a simple example.





Stefan Israelsson Tampe explained sometime back that the orbitsphere is 
characterized by a non-constant charge distribution in which the charge is 
proportional to the real value of one of the spherical harmonics:



https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg105034.html



If Stefan is correct, it seems that Mills is proposing a current that varies 
along the surface of the orbitsphere, i.e., is not constant. Stefan in a later 
email says that the non-radiation condition is not the only requirement that 
must be met:


https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg105060.html


I mention this not because I was persuaded of anything by that thread, but 
because it seems relevant to your thought experiment.  As an aside, it seems to 
me that in such thought experiments a two-dimensional sheet of current is not 
sufficient to explain other experimental observations. I am of the impression 
that the current distribution that describes an electron orbital must be three 
dimensional, varying with the radius.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:39 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

An sphere can be constructed from a large number of individual toroids.  As
> I have mentioned many times before, this toroid type of structure would not
> radiate provided the current is constant at every point within the toroid.
>

Perhaps. But will Mills agree with it in connection with his theory?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[David Roberson]

I do not know what he thinks about this situation but it would be interesting 
for him to acknowledge that the math he uses demonstrates that zero far field 
radiation is emitted by a construction of this type.  It is likely that he 
assumed a spherical orbital shape and then derived that it would not radiate 
when the electron currents are constant.   The math would become very difficult 
to handle with more complex current paths which might prevent anyone from 
taking that leap.

It can be shown that the actual shape of the current orbital is not important 
as long as the electron current remains constant at every point upon its 
surface.   Of course the math required to prove this statement is way beyond my 
capability with anything but the simplest structures.  A simple analogy is 
available.  You can construct a fixed inductor by winding wire into any three 
dimensional path that you wish and will find that the final component does not 
radiate as long as the current fed into that structure retains a constant DC 
value.

The magnetic field associated with the above mentioned inductor could be 
extremely complicated in three dimensional space with many knots, loops, etc. 
appearing within the near field.  But, far field radiation would balance out to 
zero in all directions.

Also, there is no requirement for the current to remain at the same constant 
value throughout the inductor's three dimensional space.  Any structure that 
you wish can be generated as long as it can be built up from individual 
constant current sections.


 The bottom line is that it is easy to produce a non radiating structure of any 
degree of complexity as long as the currents flowing within that structure are 
constant.  An orbitsphere such as Mills appears to refer to is a simple example.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 20, 2016 10:27 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!




On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:39 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


An sphere can be constructed from a large number of individual toroids.  As I 
have mentioned many times before, this toroid type of structure would not 
radiate provided the current is constant at every point within the toroid.




Perhaps. But will Mills agree with it in connection with his theory?


Eric

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:19:47 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>The paper said that the knots have been produce in many contexts. But the
>case here is based on a superfluid, Mills does bot recognize the existence
>of this state of matter. Or am I incorrect on that?

Yes. I think he wrote a paper on something to do with superfluid helium at one
stage, though I don't recall the precise details. Perhaps it's on his website.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[mixent]

In reply to  Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:24:26 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160118134930.htm

Quote:

"The field segregates into an infinite number of linked rings, each with its own
field direction."

This sounds like a description of the electron in Mills' Hydrino.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[Axil Axil]

It sounds like the topologically opposite shape of the hydrino...the
whispering gallery wave. The SPP might well take on the knotted topology on
of bose condensate.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:12 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:24:26
> +:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160118134930.htm
>
> Quote:
>
> "The field segregates into an infinite number of linked rings, each with
> its own
> field direction."
>
> This sounds like a description of the electron in Mills' Hydrino.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[Axil Axil]

Rydberg hydrogen matter is superconductive and also demonstrates the
meissner effect. We also know that  SPPs will always form on the surface of
a long nano-strings and might well provide this superconductive nature to
the rydberg matter. Knotted vortex circulation of photons trapped in a
photonic plasmoid could produce an effective analog monopole capable of
destabilizing subatomic particles as seen in Holmlid experiments.

 See

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw01.html

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:50 PM, H Ucar  wrote:

> Full article is at
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.08981
>
>
> I understand that spins of atoms in condensate become arranged for a short
> time in this topology similar to a vortex.
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[H Ucar]

Full article is athttp://arxiv.org/abs/1512.08981
I understand that spins of atoms in condensate become arranged for a short time 
in this topology similar to a vortex.

[Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[Roarty, Francis X]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160118134930.htm

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[Axil Axil]

For one thing electrons cannot form a bose condensate since they are
fermions. So we can exclude electrons from the knot. Photons are what
circulated around a whispering gallery wave track which forms a closed ring
as a component of the torid.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:51 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:49:21 -0500:
> Hi Axil,
> [snip]
> >It sounds like the topologically opposite shape of the hydrino...the
> >whispering gallery wave. The SPP might well take on the knotted topology
> on
> >of bose condensate.
> How is this the topological opposite? I think you just want to be defiant.
> ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[Axil Axil]

Fermions cannot form a bose condensate. Only photons can.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 6:51 PM,  wrote:
>
> How is this the topological opposite? I think you just want to be defiant.
>> ;)
>
>
> I've heard that Mills posits "orbitspheres," which are spherical shells of
> current, whereas what's shown in the article is a toroid.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:49:21 -0500:
Hi Axil,
[snip]
>It sounds like the topologically opposite shape of the hydrino...the
>whispering gallery wave. The SPP might well take on the knotted topology on
>of bose condensate.
How is this the topological opposite? I think you just want to be defiant. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Tue, 19 Jan 2016 19:04:55 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 6:51 PM,  wrote:
>
>How is this the topological opposite? I think you just want to be defiant.
>> ;)
>
>
>I've heard that Mills posits "orbitspheres," which are spherical shells of
>current, whereas what's shown in the article is a toroid.
>
>Eric

I think that if you reduce the major axis of a toroid to zero, it becomes a
sphere.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:05:22 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>For one thing electrons cannot form a bose condensate since they are
>fermions. So we can exclude electrons from the knot. Photons are what
>circulated around a whispering gallery wave track which forms a closed ring
>as a component of the torid.

Just because they created it in a BE condensate, doesn't necessarily mean that
such is a prerequisite.
Furthermore, the "knot" I was talking about is a single electron, so statistics
is irrelevant (both Fermi-Dirac & BE).
Note also that I said it "sounds like". IOW I can see a resemblance, in as much
as Mills talks about the orbitsphere as a mass of interwoven great circle
currents.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Fermions cannot form a bose condensate. Only photons can.
>

Indeed.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 6:51 PM,  wrote:

How is this the topological opposite? I think you just want to be defiant.
> ;)


I've heard that Mills posits "orbitspheres," which are spherical shells of
current, whereas what's shown in the article is a toroid.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[Axil Axil]

The paper said that the knots have been produce in many contexts. But the
case here is based on a superfluid, Mills does bot recognize the existence
of this state of matter. Or am I incorrect on that?

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:09 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:05:22 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >For one thing electrons cannot form a bose condensate since they are
> >fermions. So we can exclude electrons from the knot. Photons are what
> >circulated around a whispering gallery wave track which forms a closed
> ring
> >as a component of the torid.
>
> Just because they created it in a BE condensate, doesn't necessarily mean
> that
> such is a prerequisite.
> Furthermore, the "knot" I was talking about is a single electron, so
> statistics
> is irrelevant (both Fermi-Dirac & BE).
> Note also that I said it "sounds like". IOW I can see a resemblance, in as
> much
> as Mills talks about the orbitsphere as a mass of interwoven great circle
> currents.
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!

[David Roberson]

An sphere can be constructed from a large number of individual toroids.  As I 
have mentioned many times before, this toroid type of structure would not 
radiate provided the current is constant at every point within the toroid.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Jan 19, 2016 8:05 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum knots accomplished!




On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 6:51 PM,  <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:


How is this the topological opposite? I think you just want to be defiant. ;)

I've heard that Mills posits "orbitspheres," which are spherical shells of 
current, whereas what's shown in the article is a toroid.




Eric