Jeff,
I agree with contraction and dilation of hydrogen because
that occurs from the perspective of both the stationary and near C observer
perspectives BUT why are you assuming the mass of the hydrogen should
increase if it is the surrounding metal geometry that is approaching C
relative to a NEGATIVELY accelerated hydrogen atom? Shouldn't it be the
mass of the quantum geometry increasing slightly since it is the component
approaching C relative to the contracted hydrogen?
Fran
From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:16 PM
To: [email protected]
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=quaternio
n+fine+structure+constant> ":
"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
