In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:36:40 -0500 (EST): Hi Dave,
The point I was trying to make, is that Maxwell's laws were all based upon macroscopic experimental evidence. Little was known of atoms at the time. Hence the limitations were not obvious. The equations governing radiation may need to be modified to include the fact that photons have h_bar angular momentum, as a limiting criterion. To use your modeling approach, space-time around the atom vibrates synchronously with the electron, but the vibration remains localized, unable to leave the atom as a traveling wave. Instead, it is locked in place as a localized standing wave. Energy constantly being exchanged back and forth between the medium and the electron, without loss. ...here I don't want it, you have it, no, no, I don't want it you have it....(hot potato) ;) >I think I understand what you are referring to now. We are in agreement that >energy is radiated by atoms in discrete levels at 1 photon per chunk. The >main point I was attempting to make is that the actual orbitals must have >characteristics that do not radiate unless and until that photon is to be >emitted. That is the reason I mentioned the far field determination. > > >Any assumed atomic electron path should automatically prevent continuous >radiation if valid. Mills seems to achieve this goal by having a continuous >orbitsphere that can be constructed from an infinite number of individual >incremental DC loops. The one issue that seem out of line is when some form >of rotating charge distribution is assumed. It appears that a instrument >located at some far field location would be able to detect the rotating field >vectors which implies unbalanced radiation in that direction. My suspicion is >that his equations defining that changing charge distribution may not be of a >closed form, but instead are of a limiting series. One or more terms may be >heading toward zero as the rotation rate heads toward zero and is assumed to >be zero for simplification. > > >I may well be wrong in my suspicion since I have not looked over Mills' theory >in great detail, but my visualization methods tend to work well. Any >stationary charge distribution would be fine, but not one that is rotating >with discrete hot spots. > > >The quantum theory can pass my test as long as the electron is not considered >a point moving inside the orbital. From what I understand, the actual >location of the electrons according to that theory is of a probability nature >and no actual path is assumed for each to travel along in the time domain >under non radiation conditions. Any remote observer would detect a steady E >and H field from that type of orbital. I would also expect the electron to be >of a moving distributed nature similar to Mills' theory in order for the atom >to exhibit a magnetic moment while not radiating. > > > >Dave > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com> >To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 8:09 pm >Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement > > >In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:41:12 -0500 (EST): >Hi, >[snip] >>Robin, there is only one lower frequency where radiation is not possible and >that is zero radians per second. If you believe that some other frequency >exists that is a threshold how would that be determined? What in nature would >separate one frequency from the next so that a well defined chasm is found? > >The lower limit is not a limit on frequency. I used the term "lower limit" to >indicate that something special happens with EM radiation when you reach atomic >dimensions. Photons have h_bar angular momentum. If your system can't deliver >that then you can't make a photon. > >Essentially all macroscopic systems easily can, however for atoms it becomes >impossible below the ground state. Hence (IMO) the reason for the "ground" >state. > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk > >http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
