I did some reading and using the concept of mass increases as the velocity approaches the speed of light is not a good way to look at it (for reasons that are not totally clear to me). There is time dilation and length contraction for an object (the electron) as it approaches the speed of light - but essentially the physicists are saying don't interpret that as mass increase. I found this quote from Einstein on the hyperphysics website:
Einstein's point of view is described in the following quote: "It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M (the relativistic mass that approaches infinity at v = c) it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html#c3 I find it amazing that these 5 simple energy equations (from my earlier post) still work even though electron is undergoing length contraction and time dilation as it approaches the speed of light at orbit state n = 1/137. Mills says that the ratio of charge to mass (e/m) is a constant for the orbiting electron as it approaches the speed of light. I was hoping that would be the reason that the energy equations work correctly during time dialation and length contraction for the electron - but I don't see that in the equations so that may not be the answer. But the end result is amazing in terms of elegance .... 5 simple equations all equal the rest mass of the electron to 9+ significant digits. Jeff On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:37 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the information Jeff. I was expecting his mass calculation to > increase or remain the same as the speed of the orbitsphere approached > light speed. Now I will have to understand why it is supposed to become > less. That was not even on my radar! > > We need to understand what might happen had the denominator become > infinite in his fractional representation. Many times a limiting value > holds key information and it seems odd that the value of 1/137 should be so > important. I guess that this particular fraction is tied to the speed of > light which is a well defined parameter. That might be the significance > that we seek, so now I plan to go onto your site and look at the equations > in more detail. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Driscoll <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 3:08 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory > > yes, it is all in there, I can find it later, but if you look at his > papers, you will see it > > the mass of the electron does not increase as the orbits get closer to > 1/137 (and as it approaches the speed of light) > > as it approaches that 1/137 orbit, it becomes more similar to a photon > having zero mass, > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:52 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Jeff, do you know whether or not Mills takes special relativity into >> consideration in his equations that lead to the excellent match with the >> fine structure constant? If he does, how does SR impact the calculation? >> There are interesting implications if he does not need to. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeff Driscoll <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 2:17 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory >> >> you have 3 significant digits for 1/137.12 (i.e. 137) >> >> while Mills has 9+ significant digits that match the rest mass of the >> electron (i.e. 510998.896) and he does it for 5 equations that are >> classical and he does it in a logical fashion that a college physics >> student would understand, >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:12 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> From "Quaternion >>> Physics<http://books.google.com/books?id=f9IPh4IxteMC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=quaternion+fine+structure+constant> >>> ": >>> >>> "In examining the Hydrogen atoms Quantum speed, 1/2(e/q)² = 1/137.12 >>> appears and is approximagely equal to α." >>> >>> Quaternions are the third normed division algebra. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:40 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Interesting. Do the normed division algebras enter into Mills' theory? >>>> >>>> If so, I have something to contribute: >>>> >>>> There may be a mathematical identity between the 4 normed division >>>> algebras and the 4 levels of the combinatorial hierarchy. >>>> >>>> A paper by Stanford researcher Pierre Noyes describing the prediction >>>> of cosmological measurements based on the combinatorial hierarchy (which is >>>> therein defined): >>>> >>>> http://slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-8779.pdf >>>> >>>> The reason I am suspicious that there is a connection between the two >>>> is the parsimony with which the third level of the combinatorial >>>> hierarchy's electroweak interaction can be described by quaternions, and my >>>> intuition that the strong interaction may parsimoniously be described by >>>> complex numbers. >>>> >>>> An introduction to Noyes's bitstring physics: >>>> >>>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9707020.pdf >>>> >>>> wherein he associates the four levels of the combinatorial hierarchy >>>> with the four scale constants for the superstrong, strong, electroweak and >>>> gravitational interactions respectively >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Jeff Driscoll <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> I tried to summarize a few reasons why I believe Randell Mills's >>>>> theory of the atom. >>>>> >>>>> ============================================== >>>>> For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine >>>>> structure constant, alpha = 1/137.035999 >>>>> Physicist Richard Feynman said this decades ago: "It has been a >>>>> mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all >>>>> good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry >>>>> about it." >>>>> Feynman also said: "It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of >>>>> physics: A magic number with no understanding by man" >>>>> >>>>> In my view, the value of the fine structure constant is explained by >>>>> Randell Mills's model of the hydrogen atom. >>>>> In Mills's model, the principal quantum number n can take on >>>>> fractional values with the smallest being n =1/137. For purposes of the >>>>> following energy calculations, assume an electron is orbiting around the >>>>> proton in a stable orbit at the principal quantum number n = 1/137.035999 >>>>> (i.e. the fine structure constant, alpha) and has a radius R based on >>>>> Mills's theory. An electron orbiting at this radius R has the following 5 >>>>> energy calculations related to it and they *all* equal exactly 510998.896 >>>>> eV or the rest mass of the electron (this is to 9+ significant digits!). >>>>> The energy equations are: >>>>> 1. Resonant energy of the vacuum for a sphere having radius R. >>>>> 2. Capacitive energy of a sphere having radius R. >>>>> 3. Magnetic energy for an electron orbiting a proton on the infinite >>>>> number of "great circles" (as described by Mills) on the surface of a >>>>> sphere having radius R. >>>>> 4. Planck equation energy for a photon having a wavelength that >>>>> matches a sphere having radius R. >>>>> 5. Electric potential energy for an electron evaluated at infinity >>>>> relative to a sphere having radius R with a proton at the center. >>>>> >>>>> The amazing thing is that these 5 energy equations above are >>>>> classical, meaning no quantum theory is involved and it uses Newtonian >>>>> dynamics and Maxwell's equations. The 5 energy equations are exactly the >>>>> same as found in physics textbooks. >>>>> The energy equations are related to Mills's "Pair Production" (where >>>>> a photon is converted into an electron) and to have an organized, logical >>>>> theory have such a coincidence where they all equal the rest mass of the >>>>> electron would be impossible in my view. >>>>> >>>>> Mills's equations for the radius of the orbiting electron can be >>>>> derived using the same methods as Niels Bohr but with slightly different >>>>> postulates. >>>>> >>>>> 1. Bohr postulated that the momentum of the electron was equal to the >>>>> principal quantum number multiplied by the reduced Planck constant for all >>>>> stable orbits. Mills postulates that the momentum of the electron is >>>>> equal >>>>> to *only* the reduced Planck constant at all stable orbits (i.e. it is not >>>>> a function of principal quantum number). >>>>> 2. Bohr postulated that the electric charge experienced by the >>>>> electron due to the proton is equal to e (the elementary charge) for all >>>>> stable orbits. Mills postulates that the electric charge experienced by >>>>> the >>>>> electron due to the proton *and* the trapped photon is equal to e/n or the >>>>> elementary charge divided by the principal quantum number for all stable >>>>> orbits. >>>>> >>>>> You can find out more about Randell Mills's theory at my website here: >>>>> >>>>> http://zhydrogen.com >>>>> >>>>> Side note: Mills's lowest allowed orbit is 1/137 not 1/137.035999 and >>>>> (I think) the difference between the two numbers is related to a small >>>>> magnetic interaction between the electron and the proton. You can see >>>>> more >>>>> detail in Mills's book, Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) >>>>> which is streamed here: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Driscoll >> 617-290-1998 >> > > > > -- > Jeff Driscoll > 617-290-1998 > -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
