John, I have mainly been referring to the behavior of static orbitals of electrons. If you induce a changing field, etc. to the environment then it is quite likely that radiation would be emitted. For example, if an RF field is used to drive the system then the orbitals should adjust in response. I can imagine this happening on a real time basis where the orbital shape changes at the rate of the applied field. That should radiate at the same frequency as the impressed field I would think.
The main issue I wanted to point out is that a continuous current distribution does not radiate. The best example of such a system is an inductor connected to a constant voltage supply. Initially as the current builds up some radiation is emitted. After the current reaches a stable level there is no additional radiation. At that point magnetic field remains, but not radiation into the far field exists. Also, it should be pointed out that the coil can be wound in any 3 dimensional structure as you desire yet no long term radiation is emitted. For the inductor example above, radiation can be seen under conditions of external driving stimulus. If an incident RF field impacts the inductor it will radiate at that same drive frequency. This appears to be the same behavior as expected from an electron orbital of the type described by Mills. Dave -----Original Message----- From: John Berry <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Nov 13, 2015 7:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together. So then, are the radius that electrons orbit at, points where the 'uncertainty' of their position becomes evenly distributed around the atom, such that they exist in all those positions simultaneously? Essentially a maximization and perfection of their uncertainty. Also, if this is so, would it not suggest that "constantly" bumping things into electrons or somehow collapsing their wavefunctions could say, make they radiate? make hydrinos? On a related tac, if you consider the mathematically predicted velocity of electrons in copper, it's so slow that at really high frequencies (I think a few hundred ghz is possible) that at such frequencies, the distance an electron would move before turning around even at reasonable current densities is based on a calculation I did, a 56th of the classical electron diameter! 0.00000063nm < 200ghz electron drift distance before reversal 0.00001771029nm <electron radius This makes me think that since that movement is soooooo tiny, shouldn't a dielectric be able to pass a current as you would presume electrons could move? I wonder if there is some connection here, could the electrons that are not free be unable to move relative to the proton at all? Are atoms not able to be distorted by electric fields? Maybe until an electron is pulled off, the (neutral) atom is essentially unable to react? Now, there's an idea! An exception might exist in high gradient fields where parts of the electron shell is in a more intense field than that at the proton, resulting in a net force on the atom?! Could this not be used to create a gravity like tractor beam? What kind of drop off would you need linear (doubt it)? Inverse square? Or would something faster be needed? John On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 3:37 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Bob, this is an interesting derivation. I suspect that it can be boiled down to what I have mentioned before which is that you can construct any three dimensional shape that you wish out of constant current loops. Since each loop does not radiate, any number of them also do not radiate. Also, they do not have to be circular. The key is to have a smooth distribution of charge flowing that does not allow the accumulation and distribution of the resulting electric field as a function of time. Mills orbitals follow that rule according to the way I read his documentation. An infinite number of three dimensional shapes exist that do not radiate according to this simple criteria. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to mathematically analyze complex structures of this type which leads to authors only finding a few out of an infinite number of possibilities. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bob Higgins <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2015 6:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together. It actually took me a while to get a readable copy of this paper and I have cleaned up the better copy. Here is where I keep it on my Google drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2TllPckVraXNmLTg/view?usp=sharing On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: Do you have a link address? On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: Axil, if you want to be informed about electrons and radiation/non-radiation, you should read G. H. Goedecke's paper, "Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum Theory", Physical Review, Volume 135, Number 1B, July 13, 1964. It tells of the criteria for electron motion to exist without radiation. On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together. It has also been shown that the atomic building blocks of matter are dependent upon the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) for their very existence. This was clearly demonstrated by Dr. Hal Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin, Texas. In Physical Review D, vol. 35:10, and later in New Scientist (28 July 1990), Puthoff started by pointing out an anomaly. According to classical concepts, an electron in orbit around a proton should be radiating energy. As a consequence, as it loses energy, it should spiral into the atomic nucleus, causing the whole structure to disappear in a flash of light. But that does not happen. When you ask a physicist why it does not happen, you will be told it is because of Bohr's quantum condition. This quantum condition states that electrons in specific orbits around the nucleus do not radiate energy. But if you ask why not, or alternatively, if you ask why the classical laws of electromagnetics are violated in this way, the reply may give the impression of being less than satisfactory. See:Harold E. Puthoff, "Everything for nothing", New Scientist, pp.36-39, 28 July 1990. http://www.ldolphin.org/everything.html Instead of ignoring the known laws of physics, Puthoff approached this problem with the assumption that the classical laws of electro-magnetics were valid, and that the electron is therefore losing energy as it speeds in its orbit around the nucleus. He also accepted the experimental evidence for the existence of the ZPE in the form of randomly fluctuating electromagnetic fields or waves. He calculated the power the electron lost as it moved in its orbit, and then calculated the power that the electron gained from the ZPF. The two turned out to be identical; the loss was exactly made up for by the gain. It was like a child on a swing: just as the swing started to slow, it was given another push to keep it going. Puthoff then concluded that without the ZPF inherent within the vacuum, every atom in the universe would undergo instantaneous collapse. In other words, the ZPE is maintaining all atomic structures throughout the entire cosmos. When a magnetic beam of sufficient strength falls on the vacuum that contain atoms, that vacuum is distorted when electromagnetic properties of the vacuum are changed. This disrupts those atoms in many ways including how pions are formed from the vacuum between protons and neutron; how the strong force behaves inside the proton and neutron and how electrons obit the nucleus.
