On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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, Mills says the lowest stable orbit is principal quantum number n = 1/137 (which gives it exactly one unit of angular momentum, the same as all other orbit states including non-fractional orbit states) at n = 137.0359, the electron is at a state that Mills terms "the transition state orbitsphere" and the velocity of the orbitting electron is equal to the speed of light c and it is not specifically matter nor energy, but a mixture of the two, > 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. smaller fractions than 1/137.0359 are not possible because electron would be going faster than light > 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. > yep, wild :) > > 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<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 > -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
