It could be that charge as a static entity is fundamentally an illusion. Perhaps it is a useful illusion, but it is still an illusion. Notice that the coulomb, the unit of charge, is defined in terms of Amperes X Seconds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb Perhaps all charged particles are self-sustaining currents. Harry On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Guys, I have a question that I would like for you to answer. You speak of > a balance between classical radiation and some zero point balancing act as > the reason that the electron remains in an orbit around the central proton > in hydrogen without radiation. In most, if not all of the systems that I > have played with, the radiation that is observed within the far field can > be determined by integration of an infinite number of individual radiating > elements. Each one generates a far field pattern that is either enhanced > or balanced out by others. > > This balancing act is why a constant DC current does not radiate energy > away from the source supply and the reason that a huge MRI magnet can put > out such a large field without radiating away the drive energy. So, why > would we not be able to calculate the ZPE field you describe as merely a > second component which vector sums with the original field that would have > resulted in radiation without that balance? This type of balance would be > equivalent to a negative radiation source with a pattern that is exactly > out of phase with the original one generated by the orbiting electron. > > Calculation of far field patterns due to current can be quite > enlightening as the net effects appear to violate COE in many cases. The > simple DC loop current case is an interesting example to consider. Each > differential element of current around the loop should radiate energy to > the far field in a well defined manner. But, when the vector sum of all of > the radiating elements is completed, a balance is found that demonstrates > that no net far field is seen. Perhaps something of this nature occurs > with an atom and the orbiting electron. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Cc: puthoff <puth...@earthtech.org> > Sent: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 9:32 am > Subject: RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides > > Mark, > Just finished Puthoff’s 2012 paper and although I like his conclusion > below I still feel he is avoiding giving credit to the creation and > annihilation of pairs as powering all atomic and subatomic motion, he > refers to a “balance” between photon emission and ZP absorption but appears > to be paying homage to our ingrained assumption in physics that atomic > motion is just an inherent property of matter where I would argue that > matter would collapse and time would not even exist without these virtual > pairs streaming thru our spatial dimensions perpendicular to space.. [snip] > Atoms > therefore constitute open systems engaged in dynamic interactions with the > surrounding > vacuum states. Specifically, the on net radiationless characteristic of the > ground state is shown here to derive from particle‐vacuum interactions in > which a dynamic equilibrium is established between radiation emission due > to particle acceleration, and compensatory absorption from the zero‐point > fluctuations of the vacuum electromagnetic field. Thus, the vacuum field > is formally necessary for the stability of atomic structures, and this > underlying principle therefore constitutes an important feature of > quantum ground states. [/snip] . > Fran > > _____________________________________________ > *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net<zeropo...@charter.net>] > > *Sent:* Sunday, August 04, 2013 12:35 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides > > > Dammit Fran, ya made me leave the Dimebox Saloon to go look up the refs… > Good news is that my memory isn’t fading yet! > > 2012: Quantum Ground States as Equilibrium Particle‐Vacuum Interaction > States > *http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.1952.pdf* <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.1952.pdf> > > And his first paper on this in ’87: > *http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRDv35_3266.pdf*<http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRDv35_3266.pdf> > > Abstract > A remarkable feature of atomic ground states is that they are > observed to be radiationless in nature, despite (from a classical > viewpoint) typically involving charged particles in accelerated motions. > The simple hydrogen atom is a case in point. This universal ground‐state > characteristic is shown to derive from particle‐vacuum interactions in > which a dynamic equilibrium is established between radiation emission > due to particle acceleration, and compensatory absorption from the > zero‐point fluctuations of the vacuum electromagnetic field [1]. The > result is a net radiationless ground state. This principle constitutes an > overarching constraint that delineates an important feature of quantum > ground states. > > And this work by David Rodriguez which adds to the above: > > 2012: “Orbital stability and the quantum atomic spectrum from Stochastic > Electrodynamics” > *http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6168* <http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6168> > > Last part of Abstract: > Puthoff's work led necessarily to the quantization of angular momentum: > "if stable orbits exist... then their angular momentum must be quantized"; > now, too, we are able to do a much stronger statement: "the equations of > the system, in the presence of ZPF background, *lead necessarily to a > discrete set of stable orbits*". > > Rodriguez’s paper is extensive… > > Fran’s buying the next round of drinks!! > J > > -Mark Iverson > _____________________________________________ > *From:* Frank roarty [*mailto:fr...@roarty.biz* <fr...@roarty.biz>] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 03, 2013 7:13 PM > *To:* *vortex-l@eskimo.com* <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides > > > Mark, I think Puthoff fell short in suggesting ZPE keeps the electron and > nucleus spatially separated.. Jan Naudts 2005 paper on relativistic > hydrogen suggests f/h is relativistic based on Casimir suppression.. that > tells me the larger virtual particles are still present in a cavity but > appear contracted from our inertial frame. Rhueda and Haisch make the > analogy for Lorentzian contraction of a spacecraft approaching C as a car > driving thru a rainstorm.. the faster the cars forward speed the denser the > rain becomes in a Pythagorean relationship with the downward speed of the > rain. We know time dilation is undetectable except by relative measure and > the virtual particles measured in a lab near C, a stationary lab floating > in free space or a nano sized lab in a Casimir cavity would all see virtual > particles of normal size and be unaware of any time dilation. It is this > Pythagorean relationship that makes me posit a relativistic explanation for > Casimir effect and that the nucleus and electron are temporally displaced, > The electron is electrically tethered but is opposed from temporal > displacement by a stream of virtual particles passing through our physical > plane on the temporal axis… it is this orientation that is responsible for > relativistic measure as it establishes our time metric individually for our > inertial frame like the little zip toys that kids would pull the gear tape > and then let fly…. We don’t know how fast the ether [gear tape] is spinning > us up locally since it represents our clock it always seems like C from our > local measure. > I jumped on Jones post because I am always on the look out for a self > assembling Maxwellian demon like process that will prove the HUP can be > exploited. The concept of changing the Casimir force thru migration while > an IRH/heavy electron is locked into a p orbital of Ni is intriguing.. a > self assembled rectifying agent? Where random motion of gas is supposed to > cancel out spatially this scenario doesn’t have to become directionalized > as long as it moves between areas with different values of Casimir force it > will stress the heavy electron because the f/h will be translating to > different values but the electron is unable to leave the p orbital…. You > need this asymmetry where the f/h value can oppose random motion and > discount the thermal energy required for chemical reaction..in this case I > think it may ionize the Ni, immediately reform to the appropriate > fractional value for it’s local geometry and reform in the p shell as a > heavy electron again in an endless reaction based on changes in Casimir > force. This may even be close to the Mills animations… nice hypothesis by > Jones! > Fran > _____________________________________________ > *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint > [*mailto:zeropo...@charter.net*<zeropo...@charter.net>] > > *Sent:* Saturday, August 03, 2013 1:04 PM > *To:* *vortex-l@eskimo.com* <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides > > > Jones/Fran, > Wish I had time to read more; my vortex folder has 560 unread msgs! This > may have been suggested before, but I’ll throw it out there into the > collective to see if it strikes accord with anyone… > > In thinking (heretically, of course!) about f/H states, and how the > mainstream thinks sub-ground-state states are figments of our imaginations, > I may have an explanation. > > I think it was Puthoff who suggested that a continual interaction (xchng > of E?) between the ZPF and electrons is what maintains them at some > distance from the nucleus. Well, when atoms find themselves in a Casimir > cavity, and some of the larger wavelength ZPF is EXCLUDED, then there is > LESS ZPE (E not F) to maintain what we know as the ground state of > electrons of those atoms. Thus, the electrons fall to a lower level which > balances with whatever level of ZPE is present in the Casimir cavity… am I > behind the 8-ball on this? Has this been proposed yet? > > -Mark Iverson > > _____________________________________________ > *From:* Jones Beene [*mailto:jone...@pacbell.net* <jone...@pacbell.net>] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 03, 2013 7:23 AM > *To:* *vortex-l@eskimo.com* <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides > > > _____________________________________________ > *From:* Frank roarty > > …just staying with Ni and f/h would this hypothesis be consistent with the > anomalous spectrum emitted? Would this f/h acting as a heavy electron give > off photons when changing state..and again how would it change state if it > is locked into the p orbital..could the fractional value change states > while still acting as a heavy electron? > > Fran > > I see where you are going with this suggestion, which is provocative - but > the answer is unknown. It looks like you are trying to move beyond the > Mills’ theory into a zero point explanation. We have discussed before that > there is a known connection between ZPE and phase-change, but most of the > evidence for this is in other fields. > * > http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/science/bioscience/changes-in-proton-zero-point-energy-responsible-for-dna-phase-change11125.html > *<http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/science/bioscience/changes-in-proton-zero-point-energy-responsible-for-dna-phase-change11125.html> > > Actually there is a niche of science concerned with materials which are > tailored to exhibit large phase changes. Below the authors demonstrate that > phase change materials (PCMs) which are > known to switch reproducibly between an amorphous and a crystalline phase, > are very > promising candidates to achieve a significant oscillation force without a > change of composition. > *http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.4065.pdf*<http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.4065.pdf> > > Of course we know that phase change can happen with large thermal > consequences. In short, we have to ask: is nickel hydride a kind of > inadvertent PCM, and does it’s thermal activity depend on a precise loading > of hydrogen, and then cycling around the phase-change parameter; or indeed > does this depend on a loading with an isomer of hydrogen instead of plain > hydrogen (such as the reduced ground state) ? > > Since we know that in many NiH reactions there are no gammas, but there is > a rather distinct connection between the thermal anomaly and nickel > phase-change, then a ZPE hypothesis would be strengthened by showing how > higher energy photons can be emitted continuously and anomalously – > especially in the IR range of 10-20 microns. > > Since we know that nickel alone will not do this other than in a Mills > scenario – we have to ask if an inclusion of below ground state hydrogen > will act as the “antenna for ZPE”, so to speak. This seems to me to be a > satisfactory way to move away from a nuclear basis for LENR to a zero point > basis. A magnetic anomaly seems to fit into a ZPE explanation better than > it fits into a nuclear explanation. > > What is needed is falsifiability. > > > > > > > >
