In analysis, it is important to understand what is fundamental and what is emergent.
Are electrons fundamental or do they emerge from something more basic. For example, the spin net model of the vacume purports to show the derivation of photons, electrons, and U(1) gauge charge, small (relative to the planck mass) but nonzero masses, and suggestions that the leptons, quarks, and gluons, can be modeled in the same way. In other words, string-net condensation provides an unification of photon and electron (or gauge bosons and fermions). It can be viewed as an origin of light and electron (or gauge interactions and Fermi statistics). Under this way of thinking, an electron is a break(topological defect) in a light string. The string net liquid is the first medium from which the Maxwell equations can be derived. In condensed matter physics, a string-net is a fundamental extended object whose collective behavior has been proposed as a physical mechanism for topological order by Michael A. Levin and Xiao-Gang Wen On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:32 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > 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 > >
