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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
