There is a severe problem with this (your) approach as due to the
conservative field rules the delta of the potential energy must be equal
to the added/released kinetic energy. Otherwise the momentum transfer
doesn't work out. Where does the kinetic energy go to?
Assuming that the electron rest-mass is proportional to the (rest-)
field would indicate the the electron mass a kind of "evaporates..".
This is in fact not the case as all experiments show that true electrons
(in deeper shells) respond to radiation.
An other even more severe problem is that the Einstein metric and the
Lorenz B-factor cannot be applied to a mass that already has light
speed. All particles can be exactly modeled (See NPP2.0) by magnetic
masses (that is at light speed) and only the perturbative mass is not
rotating at light speed.
Mills H(1/4) can be modeled with the magnetic force/energy. In his
presentation he is always slightly cheating as his too simple
Hydrino-equation is in fact about 1% off the reality but still good
enough for modeling the radiation.
And last: The classic spin model is just good enough for a nomenclature.
The true spin of any particle can be calculated as the remaining
asymmetric rotating mass.
Jürg
On 12.06.2019 05:49, [email protected] wrote:
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Wed, 12 Jun 2019 03:24:41 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
Regarding deep orbits:
There is absolutely no physical solution for the forces for any QM based
model for deep orbits. The basic rules of any physical model that
includes mass are given by the de Broglie radius. Any violation of the
coulomb mass/EM-mass relation needs an additional explanation by a new
physical concept, that has never been given by anybody that modeled deep
orbits.
E.g. a deep orbit of 400keV means that the electron mass classically
should increase to a manyfold value of 400keV. But there is no mechanism
to increase the classic central force if we do not include magnetic
central forces. But these forces are not covered by QM and need a
different treatment based on rotations only!
Mills uses a "pseudo" charge increase to supply an increased central force.
I have taken a somewhat different approach, allowing the De Broglie wave to wrap
around multiple times in three dimensions before reconnecting. That results in
no increase in central force needed. See
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/relativistic-both.pdf
(This is probably due to be revamped, but frankly I can't be bothered at the
moment. ;)
A consequence of this is that the angular momentum of the electron takes on
fractional values which in turn explains why the "ground state" of the hydrogen
atom doesn't radiate, i.e. the difference in angular momentum between any two of
the sub-orbitals in insufficient to provide the angular momentum required for a
photon. In short no photon can be formed => no radiation => explains normal
stability of hydrogen ground state atom.
This doesn't prevent the lower states being accessed, provided that an alternate
method (not based on photons) is available to share the angular momentum.
This approach yields the same energy levels as Mills, but different radii.
Mills' radii are proportional to 1/n whereas mine are proportional to 1/(n^2).
QM assumes that the electron angular momentum is quantized, whereas I contend
that this only appears to be so as a consequence of the fact that all photons
have the same angular momentum. (For elliptically polarized photons, the angular
momentum vector doesn't align with the trajectory, but has the same absolute
magnitude.)
Jürg
[snip]
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
local asymmetry = temporary success
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
