As I have pointed out before on several occasions, a continuous charge function that is in motion does not produce a far field radiation pattern. The shape apparently assumed by Mills would not radiate due to this condition, but it is not necessary for the motion of the distributed charges to be spherical. The standard d, p, s, etc. would also not radiate as long as the charge does not reside at any one point in space as it moves. An electron that acts like a point source of electric field should radiate if it accelerates such as would occur in a circular orbit. If it is instead a continuous function this would not be a problem.
The best example is to look at the behavior of a DC current loop. Each tiny section of the loop will radiate in the far field as the charge associated with that point moves in a circle. But, the continuous nature of the loop allows for a balanced out far field with regard to radiation. The magnetic field does not cancel out in the same manner which would also allow a continuous electron model to have a magnetic field, but not radiate RF or other forms of electromagnetic energy. I feel that it is important to not restrict our thinking to perfect spherical orbitals since that is not necessary. Any 3 dimensional shape will work as long as the net charge is constant at every point on the surface with time. Motion of the charges is OK as long as a new one comes along to replace the one that moves out of location. Think DC current. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 12:28 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment There has to be a mathematical link. The amount of correctness in predicting chemical and fysical properties is just too amazing from both of them. And you claim the theories cannot be linked. E.g one of them is junk. Well mills theory is easy verified. No one have shown errors in those calculations from basic orbital and plain electrodynamics. Then QED has to be junk for more than two bodies else you have to clarify what you base your assumption of. The orbitals of the source terms are indeed spherical if I remembered correctly. But there are variations of properties on the sphere that are not spherical. If the link is some kind of transform, those orbitals could very well result. Of cause every analogy is halting. But mills is expected to explain and match all what is known and when people doesn't find their pet described they shout fool without actually trying to understand and take in all what does work, not in a complicated hard to grasp theory, but a simple and natural one, the answer of the pet question is probably a small modification, a small explanation away, that just is not in print yet. Keppler had a very simple theory of the observations, but couldn't match the very tweaked and refined through data fitting a clumpsy theory of earth centricity. He needed to spend another 10 years to match all of the known knowledge by himself. Therefore I still find the analogy good enough. But mills has a much harder task ahead. To match all corners of our quantum theory. That's stupid let PhD get some grants to help that quest. On Jun 30, 2014 12:26 AM, "Eric Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: On Jun 29, 2014, at 14:14, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <[email protected]> wrote: Actually, mills theory and QED is pretty close in calculating quantities for the hydrogen's atom. They must be dual or approx. Dual. I doubt they are dual. The electron shell model says that with increasing orbital angular momentum there is a change in the shape of the orbital; e.g., the s, p and d orbitals. These orbital shapes have been incorporated into solid state physics to help explain the emergence of various orders that are observed -- superconduction, ferromagnetism, etc. To the best of my knowledge, Mills describes a single orbital shape -- the orbitsphere. If there is only the orbitsphere, solid state physicists had better go back to the drawing board. Mills's theory sounds like a radical departure from known behavior of bound electrons rather than a description that is dual. It took keppler 10 years of hard work to get his theory into acceptance. I don't think Mills's situation is analogous to that of Kepler.
