Francis, Steven Hawking just trashed his own "event horizon" theory, it is all about ionization and quantum decay at the "surface" of the vacuum. More like Johnny Cash and a "Ring of Fire"
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/technology&id=9407566 Stewart On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Roarty, Francis X < [email protected]> wrote: > Harry, > > This is why I keep pushing the “suppressed environment” as key to the > riddle – it isn’t the spatial acceleration of the electron or atom but > rather the region of space time that they are migrating thru – the Casimir > geometry forms a gravity warp where virtual particle pairs are excluded – > meaning the region is equivalent to being at the top of a gravity well > relative to us outside the cavity and therefore it is us outside the well > that appear to exist in slow time just as we would see the paradox twin to > exist approaching an event horizon.. the same sort of equivalent > acceleration is occurring inside the lattice where Casimir geometry forms > but it is negative which begs the question where does mass grow larger.. > since the negatively accelerated atom is equivalent to the stationary > observer and we outside the cavity are equivalent to the relativistic twin > maybe the mass is added to the quantum geometry of the lattice that is > actually causing the suppression? > > Fran > > > > *From:* H Veeder [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2014 2:16 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory > > > > A hydrogen atom H is an atom because the motion of the electron is bound > to the proton. If the electron's motion were not bound by the proton, the > electron and proton would not form an "atom" since the electron's motion > would allow it to escape the "potential well" of the proton. > > In a classical mechanical system the orbital radius of a bound electron > can be arbitrarily large as long as the kinetic energy of the electron can > be arbitrarily small. In a quantum mechanical system if an electron has an > arbitrarily small kinetic energy then the uncertainty in its position > becomes arbitrarily large and that would increase the probability that the > electron could escape the potential well of the proton by "tunneling" > beyond it. Or is it impossible for a bound electron to free itself? > > > > harry > > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > That is right Harry. Nobody cares about how big it can be. :-) > > Actually, the integer orbitspheres of Mills include all integer values > which is like the quantum theory as I understand. Practical values are > limited by how easy it is to ionize the big atoms at an integer value that > is far less than infinity. > > This subject is one that surprises me in at least one major way. Mills > predicts the atom size as being proportional to the integer directly while > quantum physics suggests that it varies as the square. This is a huge > difference and I can not imagine why the correct rule has not been clearly > established. How could an atom be 10 times larger(int =10) in one > calculation than the next without being obvious? > > Perhaps this discrepancy has been shown and I am not aware. Does anyone > know of an accurate measurement for an excited hydrogen diameter that > supports one of these theories? > > Dave > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: H Veeder <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 5:40 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory > > > > While people debate how small a hydrogen atom can be, there seems to be no > debate about how big a hydrogen atom can be. > > > > Harry > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I guess that is what it boils down to Eric. I would much rather have the > series continue indefinitely as I have been discussing. i.e. > (1/2,1/3,...1/137,1/138...1/infinity) which would blend nicely with the > other integer portion that we all assume is real. If the total series is > found to be valid, then there is no special consideration needed for the > 1/137 term. > > But, we must abide by natural laws and most times they do not care what we > prefer. :( > > Dave > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The theory is a photon like zitterbewegung model describing states that > retain locality in phase space with circular cycles of a trapped photon > representing the usual eigenstates. The Maxwell quanta hbar(c) becomes a > classical angular momentum quanta in phase space with quantum number 137 > attached. > > > > Ah, gotcha. Thank you. Hence also the electron "becoming a photon" as it > approaches the lowest level. > > > > Now we have to decide whether we can live with a series { 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, > ..., 1/136, alpha(N) }. (Or something like that.) > > > > Eric > > > > > > >
