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 <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <[email protected]> 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
