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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > [email protected]> 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 > >
