That sounds like a lonely road...
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > Mills says that there is no virtual particle production, no uncertainty > principle and no Casmir geometry. > > Any discussion of these concepts is outside of Mills world. > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:58 AM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ie. The twin is not coming home, he got entropified into lots of >> subatomic particles, kinda like the transporter room malfunctioning on Star >> Trek...:) >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:50 AM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
