I have an idea how the push of the electron field can happen. As the proton approaches the hydrogen's there will be a flat region i the electrostatic force field in the middle. If the electron is there it would not like to curve its field but keep it flattened in order to not radiat it will not drag the whole field of the electron with it, but move the field closer to the hydrogen's nucleus. Hence the field is pushed. Wdyt?
Actually, mills theory and QED is pretty close in calculating quantities for the hydrogen's atom. They must be dual or approx. Dual. It just needs to find how they link together and then all present knowledge transfers back and forth between the models. No need to jump any ship there is. Also note that mills theory is a kind of steady state theory, well at least things need to have settled so that the state is in its recurrent state. But QED tries to be a time marching theory. That is why I tout that physisist need to develop the theory further. Personally I'm trained in qm and use the intuition from there. But interpret the quantum fields to be a mathematically related to an orbitsphere and not a probability to find a particle. My interpretation of mills theory is that it is a recurrent state related to maxwells equation plus additional terms related to nonlinearities in the physics of electromagnetism. Now one can just put all these nonlinear terms in one term and call them charges. Mills then take the source terms that fit a nonradiaton condition because that is what is observed and lo and behold he gets the nonlinear part doing this trick. Now the orbitsphere might be strange but consider that it is the source terms in a second order equation. Forces is just jumping over the orbit sphere. My take on this is that the physics is that the nonlinearities works like a mirror for information at the range of the orbitsphere but the bounding is damped out as equilibrium is approached and just pure photons are seen with a node at the orbitsphere with regards to the information traveling part of the photon inside the orbitsphere. Also do not take all what mills is writing for truth. The truth is that people are usually both right and wrong, I think that you can translate Heisenberg over to mills theory qute well. A free electron according to mills has source term in space and is not in any orbitsphere if I remember correctly. If you try to dynamically fix that in a point in space surely you need the field to dynamically implode and cause movements in all direction and perhaps also all momentums as well if we neglect relativism for the moment. But I sort of agree with mills that in his theory Heisenberg's notion is of less interest. It looks like that physicist fall in the trap of demanding everything perfect and coherent before taking the effort to read up on mills theory. In stead of looking at all experiment evidences, e.g. all quantities correctly calculated. And helping out to perfect the theory. In stead they miss the elefant in the room due some artefact that with extremely high probability can be corrected if effort is put. It is all very similar to the dilemma cold fusion has with the many experimental evidences and an underdeveloped theory. It took keppler 10 years of hard work to get his theory into acceptance. Mills theory have a much longer way to travel, it is not right to ask for one man or his team to do this by himself. On Jun 29, 2014 7:38 PM, "Eric Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Anyway how to interpret the electron as a ball going around or really a >> field is not yet proved even to date. If you look at Mills theory, the >> electron is a spherical electron charge, so If he is right, and nobody has >> debunked that representation, then the field representation is more correct >> and is what I maintain is the physics, not a ball going around in circles. >> > > I don't think the present understanding of a probabilistic location for > the electron requires that it be understood as a ball orbiting the nucleus. > But as I think further about Mills's orbitsphere, I have started to wonder > how it deals with these questions: > > - If a bound electron takes the form of a thin shell of charge at a > certain distance from the center of charge (or mass) of the nucleus, how is > it possible to think of the electron either as a wave or a particle? What > is it that is oscillating? Is the wavefunction to be a trivial, constant > one? > - If we get rid of wavefunctions and particles when thinking about > bound electrons, do we also throw away the uncertainty principle? > > Here we start to get into the woods with Mills's theory. I suspect that > to fully embrace it is not unlike joining a Christian group that insists > that you cut all past ties to your family and friends. In this case, you > must replace each equation from humanity's collective study of physics that > causes trouble with some alternate explanation that goes back to Mills. It > is like pulling a thread on a sweater that keeps unraveling. > > Eric > >
