Jeff, I have toyed with the concept of traveling faster than light and mentioned some of the consequences I expect on this list a while back. From the electrons point of view, its mass remains the same regardless of any velocity it may have relative to other observers. The only way I can understand the behavior of particles circulating within an accelerator is to assume that time dilation and length contraction must exist between relative observers. The operators of the device measure the speed of the electron as it circles the accelerator ring and see that it is moving at almost the speed of light. Time therefore passes much slower for the electron from the operators point of view.
This condition should make the electron's mass appear greater to the machine operator, but that may be just his conclusion based upon the difficulty in changing the direction of the electron with his magnetic deflection process. The same should be true for any electric field acceleration process. This behavior makes sense if the electron is significantly exceeding the speed of light by its measurement referenced to the dimensions of the accelerator when the electron is at rest. The time dilation and length contraction work hand in hand in this particular case. We might assume that the same situation holds for an electron orbiting a proton of hydrogen in the small orbitsphere fractional energy cases. Perhaps that would allow larger denominators than 137, in which case the electron moves faster than light and time dilation and length contraction greatly impacts its behavior. If true, the fraction 1/137 just happens to be the special case where the electron speed(as estimated by the electron) is that of light, but smaller fractions may be possible. After all, most series do not truncate at an odd term, so maybe the series goes to 1/infinity if time dilation and length contraction are taken into account. It would be an interesting calculation to determine the radius of the orbitsphere when the fraction is 1/infinity while taking time dilation and length contraction into account. That might suggest that the atomic electron states of hydrogen could go from infinity to 1/infinity which is well balanced. That is the kind of beauty I like to see in nature. Jeff, have you seen any derivation from Mills' equations that specifically point to the 1/137 fractional orbitsphere as being special? Could it be that this just happens to be fairly close to the physical constant and assumed equal? I have to ask why 1/138 is not a valid value as well. I am not convinced that Mills' theory is correct in any way, but am speculating about some interesting characteristics that may be possible if it has validity. Mark this post as blue sky wild speculation. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Driscoll <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 10:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory 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": "In examining the Hydrogen atoms Quantum speed, ½(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
