Jones wrote on 7-31-09:
My advice is to read up on everything Don Hotson has
written, and then try to contact him (if he is still
alive). Last time I heard from him was over a year ago
and he was ill. Actually, he is such a good writer, and
poor speaker that everything you need is in his essays. He
understands Dirac better than Dirac.
If you understand Dirac, you are most of the way there.
Hi All,
Here is some Hotson info.
Jack Smith
---------
From: Donald Hotson <donhot...@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:14:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: HSG: Re: Lorentz on Electrostatic Self-Interaction
Donald Hotson <donhot...@yahoo.com> wrote on
Mon, 28 Feb 2005 to hydr...@yahoogroups.com:
Dear John [John A. Kassebaum],
I would like to suggest a new model of the 'orbitsphere'
(perhaps so different that it warrants a different name)
but which at least qualitatively solves many of the
problems with Mills' 2D model. However it will take a
bit of spadework.
The major unaddressed problem with SQM can be stated as
'What the hell are we standing on?' Take for instance the
hydrogen atom, and blow it up to solar system size. If
the proton were the size of the sun, the (still a
point!) electron would not even orbit within the solar
system--it would be 20 times as far from the sun as
Pluto. That this point-electron can exclude everything
else from this immense sphere is beyond strange. (An
'extended' electron hardly solves this problem.) To say
this exclusion is the result of some mystical 'possibility
wave' is blatant hand-waving. However Mills' 2D soap
bubble is hardly better. Even aside from its interaction
problems, how could such a structure resist the immense
forces necessary to cause it to become 'degenerate'?
My proposed solution requires but a single, large
assumption: that the Dirac equation means what it says, not
what QED has misinterpreted it to say. Dirac's equation
has four roots: it calls for electrons and positrons of
positive energy, and electrons and positrons (or at least
+ and - charges) of negative energy. Adopting a kinetic
definition of energy gives an unequivocal answer to the
question 'what is negative energy?' In this definition,
almost mandated by the Lorentz relationships, energy is
the motion of charges; mass is a harmonic (standing wave)
motion of charges.
Virtually every equation of QM (including the Dirac)
includes 'i', which calls for the function to extend into
an 'imaginary' direction. In this kinetic definition,
'positive' energy would be the motion of charges in a
'real' direction; negative energy would be the motion of
charges in some 'imaginary' direction.
According to QM, every ionic charge is immediately
surrounded by infinite numbers of electron-positron
pairs. ('Epos'). (They call them 'virtual', but there is no
excuse for this qualifier, especially since these epos are
required to account for the most precise measurement in
all of physics, the magnetic 'g' factor.) With an ionic
electron, the positron ends of the pairs surround the
electron. But this unbalances the epo, causing another
epo to attach to it, ad infinitum, causing chains of epos
to stretch from each negative ion to some positive ion,
forming the EM field. (For a diagram, see p. 58 of my
Dirac articles, published in 'Infinite Energy' issues
43 and 44, available at <www.infinite-energy.com> or
<www.openseti.org>. This is the only causal, direct-contact
model of the EM field of which I am aware.)
The gross violation of conservation involved in these
infinite numbers of epos is removed if they are not
'created', as QM says they are, but merely 'raised in
state' from negative to positive energies from Dirac's
sea of negative-energy epos. Vibrating in one 'real'
dimension, they would have no inertia, or mass. (This
also directly explains 'Zero-Point Energy' (ZPE) which
calls explicitly for this 'sea'.) Since the energy is
directed in 'imaginary' directions, this explains why
it is seldom directly measurable--but its effects are
everywhere, not the least of them being that the 'vacuum'
has at least half a dozen measurable properties. Each epo
would be a boson--and a below-zero sea of bosons would
form a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC). That 'our reality'
is immersed in a vast BEC explains a great deal.
Plasma physicists point out that the universe is
99.999% plasma, 'solid matter' making up less than
.001%. The stars, galaxies, and interstellar gas are
all plasmas. Plasma is the 'natural state'; we are the
far-out exceptions. And plasmas follow their own rules,
many of their characteristics being similar to those of
a BEC, exhibiting self-organization, being excellent
conductors, superfluid, and non-local. I suggest that
these characteristics are derived from the underlying BEC.
However I suggest we can eliminate that .001%. When an
electron is 'captured' by a proton, I suggest that it
supplies the 'order parameter', the phase angle which
allows it to construct a crystalline structure (BEC)
of epos surrounding the proton, all pulled up from the
negative-energy 'sea'. This BEC would embody colletively
the electron's attributes (every part of a BEC must have a
single wave function, that of the electron) with a chain of
epos everywhere the Schroedinger equation would suggest the
'possibility' of the electron's presence. This would form
an immensely strong roughly spherical structure, + and -
charges alternating, perhaps similar to a crystal formed by
an ionic salt. It would be very resistant to deformation,
and would explain along the way such mysteries as the
'exclusion principle'.
It seems to me that this would be an 'orbitsphere' composed
of real substance. I suggest that everywhere QM calls for
a 'psi wave', instead of its being, in Einstein's phrase,
a 'spukhafte Fernwirkungen' or a spooky 'ghost wave', it
is actually a physical, causal structure of epos formed
into a BEC.
If a single assumption can solve many problems, I
suggest it is at least worth some consideration. And this
assumption solves many of them. (See my Dirac articles,
above, for more.)
Best, Don Hotson
------------
From: "Terry Blanton" <hohlr...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: OT: Lee Smolin on "A Crisis in Fundamental Physics"
On 8/14/06, Harry Veeder <eo...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
A recent article by Lee Smolin entitled "A Crisis
in Fundamental Physics"
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
Excellent article Harry. I believe it is most certainly on topic.
This is the very attitude which drove Hotson from studying physics:
http://www.geocities.com/terry1094/HotsonPart1.pdf
...
The Hotson "family business" is English literature. Mr. Hotson's
father and uncle had Harvard Ph.D.s in the subject, and his late uncle
was a famous Shakespeare scholar. Mr. Hotson, however, always intended
a career in physics. Unfortunately, he could not resist asking awkward
questions. His professors taught that conservation of mass-energy is
the never-violated, rock-solid foundation of all physics. In "pair
production" a photon of at least 1.022 MeV "creates" an
electron-positron pair, each with 0.511 MeV of rest energy, with any
excess being the momentum of the "created" pair. So supposedly the
conservation books balance.
But the "created" electron and positron both have spin (angular
momentum) energy of h/4p. By any assumption as to the size of electron
or positron, this is far more energy than that supplied by the photon
at "creation."
"Isn't angular momentum energy?" he asked a professor.
"Of course it is. This half-integer spin angular momentum is the
energy needed by the electron to set up a stable standing wave around
the proton. Thus it is responsible for the Pauli exclusion principle,
hence for the extension and stability of all matter. You could say it
is the sole cause of the periodic table of elements." "Then where does
all this energy come from? How can the 'created' electron have
something like sixteen times more energy than the photon that
supposedly 'created' it? Isn't this a huge violation of your
never-violated rock-solid foundation of all physics?"
"We regard spin angular momentum as an 'inherent property' of electron
and positron, not as a violation of conservation."
"But if it's real energy, where does it come from? Does the Energy
Fairy step in and proclaim a miracle every time 'creation' is invoked,
billions of times a second? How does this fit your never-violated
conservation?"
"'Inherent property' means we don't talk about it, and you won't
either if you want to pass this course."
Well, this answer sounded to him like the Stephen Leacock aphorism:
"'Shut up,' he explained." Later Mr. Hotson was taken aside and told
that his "attitude" was disrupting the class, and that further, with
his "attitude," there was no chance in hell of his completing a
graduate program in physics, so "save your money." He ended up at the
Sorbonne studying French literature, and later became a professional
land surveyor. However, he has retained a lifelong interest in the
"awkward questions" of physics, and with Dirac's Equation has found
some answers.
-------------------
Hi All,
I'm having a hard time getting my mind around the
fifth force, but I find Don Hotson's explication of
Dirac's epos helpful. (These epos entirely filling
the universe make a plausible basis for action at
a distance, but so far I'm sticking to gravitons that
travel orders of magnitude faster than light.)
The epos might provide a medium that could be some
kind of sub-atomic rail gun.
Jack Smith
Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote on 11-28-07:
Few things in science are as contentious, or as
unpredictable as the "weather"; but during an electrical
storm, many vorticians have witnessed and thought about
how and what --- "in the weather" could end up being the
possible pathway to a viable alternative energy source.
Is the so-called "fifth force" part of that emerging
pathway, and is ZPE itself related to this hypothetical
force? And/or is a fifth power-law also at work, or even
related to the fifth force, perhaps in an inverse way? ...
Here is the 'Fifth Force' paper, alluded to in earlier
posts:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theorypapers/F%5E2%20102307web3.pdf
...
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg00733.html
---------------------
Infinite Energy Magazine, Vol. 8, Issue 43, May - June, 2002
page 43 and following pages:
Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy, Part 1
By Don L. Hotson
``... Dirac's complete equation ... has as solutions four
different kinds of electron: electrons and positrons of
positive energy and electrons and positrons of negative
energy ... Since ... the Dirac field comprises 'everything
that waves,' the equation therefore predicts that the entire
physical universe can be made from just these four kinds
of electron ...
On ... grounds {consistent with the physics of Ernst Mach}
Einstein in 1905 had declared the 'luminiferous ether'...
to be unobserved hence non-existent. Lorentz's electromagnetic
ether {with length contraction and time dilation} answered
all of the other objections to a carrier of light, including
the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the only
remaining objection was the Machian one ...
The Dirac theory (1934) required every charge to be surrounded
by unlimited numbers of opposite charged ends of electron-positron
pairs (... 'epos') ...
The followers of Feynman and QED insist that everything
behaves as particles, and QED treats them as point particles
... Quantum field theorists insist that everything is wave ...
There is, however, a logical way of resolving these views.
In order to negoitate the 'two slit' experiment ...
when a measurement or interaction happens, the analog
wave is converted to a digital solution with the result
reported to a specific set of coordinates ... a 'mathematical
point.'
... What becomes clear from all this is that the negative
energy sea of ... epos ... must exist in the form of a
... Bose-Einstein Condensate.
... if an electron needs to lose spin ... the polarized
epos that surround it ... can absorb the 'real' (positive)
spin energy that the electron has to get rid of ...
It thus initiates a vector line of epos ... carrying the spin
energy at velocity c. Therefore the 'photon' ... would be
a wave, carried by the epos, spreading at velocity c in every
direction, but with most of the energy carried by lines of
epos pointing in the vector direction ... an epo carrying a
photon ... 'epho.'
... In the famous 'two-slit' experiment, many of the paths
comprising the epho 'wave' ... go through each slit and
interfere with each other ... At the screen, one of them is
randomly selected ... to deliver all of the wave's angular
momentum to a single electron in the screen.
... Further, it should be noted that since each epho wave
individually travels at c, the velocity of light would be
independent of the velocity of the source ... The transmission
of light would agree with Lorentzian relatively, which meets
all the tests devised for Special Relativity ... including
those that SR fails, such at the Sagnac effect ... and the
Silvertooth effect ... One of the tragedies of science is
Lorentz's death in 1928, just as Dirac's equation was
formulated, as Lorentz surely would have recognized the
negative-energy sea as responsible for his electromagnetic
ether.''
Infinite Energy Magazine, Volume 8, Issue 44, July/August
2002
Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy, Part 2,
By D.L. Hotson
Dirac's Equation: A Relativistic Generalization of the
Schrodinger Wave Equation - The Other Half
Don Hotson P. O. Box 789 Green Mountain Falls, CO 80819
donhot...@yahoo.com
http://www.padrak.com/ine/INECONF01ABSTRACTS.html
Abstract
Dirac's wave equation is a relativistic generalization of
the Schrodinger wave equation. In 1934 this brilliantly
successful equation was shorn of half of its solutions by
a questionable bit of mathematical slight-of-hand Because
it was "politically correct" this bit of juggling became
the accepted interpretation. However recent developments
have shown the very basis of this mathematical trick to
be invalid, in that it would involve massive violations
of conservation. A reevaluation is therefore warranted.
Since Dirac's equation is a relativistic generalization
of an already generally applicable wave equation, in
formulating it Dirac expected that its solutions would
describe 'everything that waves' - that it would be a
'unitary theory of everything'. However the discovery of
several new particles and peer criticism resulting in the
truncation of the equation frustrated this expectation,
and it is generally known at present as 'Dirac's equation
of the electron'.
Dirac's complete equation describes a quantum spinor field,
which has as solutions four different kinds of electron:
electrons and positrons of positive energy, and electrons
and positrons of negative energy. This equation generalizes
an already general wave equation: therefore, as shown
herein, the equation directly predicts that 'everything
that waves', i. e. the entire physical universe, can be
made from these four kinds of electron.
This study indicates this to be the case: all matter and
all fields and forces seem to be necessary combinations
and applications of just these four kinds of electron,
fulfilling Dirac's unitary expectation.
------------------------
Quoting from Infinite Energy Magazine, Volume 8, Issue 44,
July/August 2002
Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy, Part 2,
By D.L. Hotson, page 31:
"As we have seen, there is clear and overwhelming evidence
that rotating bodies of plasma such as the Sun and the gas
giants set up standing waves in this sea of charge which
have physical effects on any matter they encounter ...
The first anomaly was the celebrated advance of the
perihelion of Mercury, for which Newcomb (1897) calculated
... The second anomaly, the motion of the node of Venus,
Newcomb gives ... GR [General Relativity] gives no
correction whatever ... The motion of the perihelion
of Mars is the third anomaly. Newcomb calculated ...
The GR correction for this is ... only about 17% of the
measured advance.
... the advance of Mercury's perihelion, Newcomb also
calculated, could also be explained by a local modification
of the force of gravitation from the inverse square to the
inverse (2 + e) power, where e is a small number of about
10^-7 (Van Flandern, 1993). Such a local modification of
the force of gravitation is exactly what would be required
by our hypothesis ..."
Since GR supposedly does better than Newton, there should
be no objection to other modifications which eliminate
absurdities derived from Einstein's work. For example,
MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) is a modification of
the usual Newtonian force law hypothesized in 1983 by Moti
Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute as an alternative to
Dark Matter. MOND can be interpreted as a modification
of gravity ...
------------
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 05:17:15 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheff...@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Photons and gravity, a thought experiment
Horace Heffner wrote:
I would briefly like to discuss from my amateur point
of view some speculations relating to photon mass and
momentum, and then suggest a thought experiment.
Photons are today not thought to carry mass. However,
it seems there is good reason to question this view.
Energy and mass are inseparable in energy exchanges
by photon. The universe may or may not spontaneously
create mass and therefore energy from the vacuum, but it
seems reasonable that in this universe mass and energy
must remain in the balance
E/m = c^2.
That is because photons carry momentum, and momentum
corresponds to energy. By Plank's law, photons carry
energy E:
E = h*nu = h(c/lambda)
and momentum
p = h/lambda
so photons always carry momentum and energy in the ratio
E/p = h(c/lambda)/(h/lambda) = c
Assume a photon is created by a nuclear event, where mass
(delta m) is converted to energy at the exchange rate of
E = (delta m) c^2, thus there is a loss of mass:
(delta m) = E/c^2.
This photon is thought, by conventional theory, to carry
no mass, only the momentum p = E/c. However, to conserve
momentum, a photon absorbed by a target mass must impart
to the target mass an additional kinetic energy (delta K)
corresponding to the change in velocity of the target due
to the momentum change of the impacted mass, and if energy
is conserved then (delta K)=E. However, by the special
theory of relativity, that results in a corresponding
increase in apparent mass of the absorbing body by the
ratio (delta K)/c^2 = (delta m). So we have the mass
(delta m) back! The photon carried mass (delta m) from
one body to another. Therefore *both* mass and energy are
conserved in a photon exchange, as is the ratio E/m = c^2.
The strange thing is that photons clearly carry mass
from one place to another, i.e. do mass exchange, yet
are thought to have no mass. Further, it is well known
(from lensing effects of stars) that photons are bent
by gravity in an amount exactly equal to the amount a
mass carrying body would be bent. It is said this proves
space is warped about gravitational bodies, in that the
supposedly mass-free photon travels the same path as a
high speed mass carrying particle.
It seems far more logical that the photon has mass.
Photons are trapped in a black hole by gravity. Strange
that a photon traveling directly away from a black hole,
a singularity, supposedly reverses course upon itself,
retracing its path right back to the black hole! If this
is because space is warped, how is it the electron has
a path to retrace at all, and how is it that velocity c
is maintained?
Then there is the issue of quantum gravity - the notion
that gravity is exchanged by gravitons. If gravity is
force exchange by gravitons, then the notion of warped
space (in addition) provides a double apparent force, thus
things are out of kilter. Is it graviton exchange that
pulls the photon back to the black hole? If so, then the
photon is capable of graviton exchange, and thus has mass.
If it is not capable of graviton exchange, how is it that
the photons are trapped by gravity, especially those on
a course directly away from a singularity?
It seems reasonable that some of the dark matter of the
universe might be photons. They are only "dark" because
they are not hitting our eyes. The kinetic pressure
of photons should cause the universe to expand more
rapidly than predicted by mass gravitational and momentum
considerations only.
At the birth of the universe all the mass was in a
singularity, thus we were, or that of which we are
made was, in a black hole. How did we get out of there?
Perhaps we did not, and the size of the universe is merely
an illusion, a distortion brought on in part by the effect
of gravity upon exiting photons. The red shift itself
may in fact be in part due to very large amounts of dark
matter, distributed in a non-uniform manner throughout
the universe, denser in the center.
Well, enough speculation and on with the thought
experiment. Suppose we are in a space ship near a
black hole. Further suppose that, through very advanced
technology, the space ship is able to skim a laser beam
near the surface of the black hole in just such an orbital
that it returns to the ship. We obtain thrust by emitting
the beam, and further by absorbing it upon its return.
This thrust is due to photon momentum. Further, due to
our advanced technology, we can reflect or re-emit the
beam, and continually repel ourselves from the black hole
without the use of significant further energy.
What is strange about all this? Well, it is the lack of
effect upon the black hole itself. Since the photons have
no mass, there is no gravitational attraction to the black
hole, no mechanism of force on the black hole itself. This
violates conservation of momentum, and thus conservation
of energy as well. The photons change direction without
a counter-force, thus violating Newton's laws.
Let us assume for a moment that the photons merely
bend about the black hole due to the warping of space,
and that somehow space itself provides a mechanism
for transmitting the counter-force to the black hole.
If this is the case, then I submit that that force upon
the black hole is indistinguishable from gravity itself,
and thus IS gravity. If the force between photons and
mass precisely follows the gravitational rule, then how
is that force is distinguishable from gravity itself?
Further, the photons carry and deliver mass. Is it not
reasonable to assume they have mass?
Well, if photons do have mass then there is a seeming
paradox that they can accelerate in zero time to speed c.
However, as the mysteries of quantum mechanics and
messenger particles go, this does not strike me as much
of a paradox. There is no reason that the photon can not
still have zero rest mass, as the mass carried from place
to place is incremental to and embodied in the masses which
exchange the photon, not in the photon itself except during
its journey.
Further, it may be questioned as to whether the photon
actually has a journey, since in its reference frame the
journey takes zero time. The path of its journey is thus
laid out fully in advance of or at least at the moment
of departure, and exists for the photon as a singularity
in time. For the photon there is no oscillation, no
frequency, no Newtonian effects, no process, no wavelength,
merely an event. If time dilation is real, then the
effects of gravity and every other form of possible
interaction on a photon's set path must thus be worked
out in, exist in, an instant. Similar truths must exist
for the graviton. These strange qualities it seems makes
them more alike than not alike.
Despite the unfathomable nature of existence, in
our limited framework of understanding, it seems more
reasonable and consistent to assume that the photon has
mass. However, assuming the contrary is also exciting, in
that it opens the door to the possibilities of free energy
and reaction mass free propulsion, since conservation of
energy and momentum are no longer inviolable laws.
Regards, Horace Heffner
----------------
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 21:27:20 +0200
From: hamdi ucar <ham...@verisoft.com.tr>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Photons and gravity, a thought experiment
Dear Horace,
Recently, while looking for a method to test Podkletnov's
"gravity impulse" gravitational nature, I thought laser
interferometry method based on gravitational redshift.
I realized first a thought experiment to show photons have
inertia and weight under a gravitational field.
The experiment is actually based on observation and does
not require a theory. Here it is:
1) Gravitational redshift is measured on laboratory at
1965. http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap5/node2.html.
2) Doppler effect is also very well known.
3) Experiment consist of isotropic light source (a lamp,
at least symmetric on one axis), placed in center of an
opaque box.
4) Showing photons have inertia: For practical reason I
chose a terrestrial lab for this experiment.
- Place the box on a horizontal surface able to move
without friction. Photons from the inside source exert
equal radiation pressure on opposing surfaces.
- Now accelerate the box on a horizontal direction
and observe the effect from the box reference
frame. Because the acceleration and finite (c)
photon speed, Observers on each wall see the the
lamp having different speed. Therefore they observe
photons red shifted and blue shifted respecting
their positions. Number of photons arriving to each
wall during the experiment assumed equal. See figure
http://gravity.webhostme.com/files/figure1.gif . (Lamp
is not shown) Because the walls receive the photons on
different wavelengths radiation pressure on walls are no
longer equal and they not cancel each other but cause a
force in the direction opposing the acceleration. This is
inertia of photons.
5) Now examine radiation pressure on top and bottom surface
of the box staying at rest on earth surface.
According (1) photons arrives to bottom a bit blue-shifted
and to top red-shifted. force corresponding radiation
pressure difference correspond to weight of the
photons. Same conclusion can be obtained not using (1)
but assuming the box is constantly accelerated upward
by the rigid platform preventing the box free fall into
earth center.
In order to simplify calculations, we can also design the
experiment with trapped photons inside a box having perfect
reflectance. Just consider only two photons ping-ponging
between walls
Let d is the length of the box, g is acceleration.
wavelength shift (Zg) on each direction is
Zg = d.g / c^2
momentum of photon of energy e is
p = e/c
as energy of shifted photons varies by Zg
e1 = e(1+Zg)
e2 = e(1-Zg)
Radiation pressure
F= I/c
I is the the energy received in unit of time. If we
consider only one photon to each wall.
ping-ponging 2 photon between walls, time requiring one
photon travel the box
t = d/c
so in one second each wall receive 1/t photons
I = e/t = ec/d
F = e/d
F1=e(1+Zg)/d
F2=e(1-Zg)/d
Fdiff = F1 - F2
= 2.Zg.e / d
Opening Zg
Fdiff = 2.(d.g / c^2).e / d
= 2 g e / c^2
Note that the Fdiff is independent of distance between
walls
Total energy of two photons
E = 2 * e
mass corresponding this energy
m= 2e/c^2
Now if the Fdiff is really the inertial force of photons
it will satisfy Newton's f = m.a equations
placing f g and m in F=m.a formula
f = m a
------------- --------- ---
2 g e / c ^2 = 2e/c^2 * g
Both sides are equal, Bingo!
hamdix
In a message dated 10/27/02 2:31:02 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ham...@verisoft.com.tr writes:
4) Showing photons have inertia: For practical reason I
chose a terrestrial lab for this experiment.
- Place the box on a horizontal surface able to move
without friction. Photons from the inside source exert
equal radiation pressure on opposing surfaces.
- Now accelerate the box on a horizontal direction
and observe the effect from the box reference
frame. Because the acceleration and finite (c)
photon speed, Observers on each wall see the the
lamp having different speed. Therefore they observe
photons red shifted and blue shifted respecting
their positions. Number of photons arriving to each
wall during the experiment assumed equal. See figure
http://gravity.webhostme.com/files/figure1.gif . (Lamp
is not shown) Because the walls receive the photons on
different wavelengths radiation pressure on walls are no
longer equal and they not cancel each other but cause a
force in the direction opposing the acceleration. This is
inertia of photons.
Robin wrote:
Did you take into account that in Mills case 'q' is also
a function of n? (perhaps you did, I have only scanned
this briefly, and haven't yet had a chance to study it
thoroughly).
Horace wrote:
No. For q to be a function of n we have to have a photon
trapped insired radius r. Since that requires a 47 keV
photon even for n = 1/2, how can we accept this theory
of q as a function of n? We are violating Heisenberg,
and now have to throw out any concept of magnetic pressure
and Plank's law as well.
Robin wrote:
What I meant was did you take it into account when creating
the equation. It appears to have been taken into account,
though this may have been because you obtained the equation
directly from Mills, rather than doing it yourself?
(BTW Mills assumes (AFAIK) that the circumference is
exactly one full De Broglie wavelength for all hydrinos) ...
