Harry,
I think we are on the same page but in different languages.
Agreed the electron remains bound to the proton and from my relativistic
perspective is locally even unaware of it's fractional state BUT becoming
localized thru measurement I take to include producing anomalous heat .. which
is where I have been going with the "suppression tapestry" inside the catalyst
/ lattice that equates to a form of Maxwellian demon as the method of
measurement.. In previous exchanges with Jones I have been convinced this only
occurs when the change in fractional states is forced to occur asymmetrically
instead of simply morphing back and forth between different fractional states..
many methods for this are possible as indicated by all the theories being
posited here on Vortex but I am also convinced the initial bootstrapping energy
source is actually ZPE and this self assembled form of demon that occurs within
the tapestry.. I think the anomalous heat is because fractional hydrogen
molecules are opposed while moving between regions - they have to borrow energy
from random motion to disassociate and reform at the new fractional value
dictated by the new local geometry they are moving into before reforming and
releasing the energy back to the system.. if the heat of the molecule was
already near disassociation and the discount substantial enough this can break
the rule of COE releasing more energy than we supply thermally. I why COE says
you can't get energy from the scale of HUT but IMHO the quantum effects of
Casimir geometry create an overlooked caveat to this rule. [this caveat neatly
hidden by natures quick tendency to self destruct these geometries in a manner
similar to pyrophoricity.
Fran
From: H Veeder [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 11:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
Francis,
After doing some more reading I realize that since the orbit of the electron is
a probability distribution according to QM it doesn't matter how spread out the
probability distribution becomes, the electron will remain bound to the proton.
However, if the electron were to become localized (through an act of
measurement) where it is expected to escape according to classical theory, will
it escape?
I did learn that for some potential wells there are no bound states. For
instance at the bottom of this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_potential_well
it says that a spherical potential well which is either too small or too
"shallow" cannot have any bound states.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Roarty, Francis X
<[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 2:16 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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
