Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
guest

Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by guest »

I recently posted one of my brillyunt brane-farts to the usenet, which didn't provoke any ridicule. Disappointed, I thought I would post it here, in hopes someone understanding could comment:

>Can someone please tell me exactly why quantum mechanics asserts that
>electrons moving around atomic nuclei do not radiate energy, when it is a
>known fact that all accelerated charges emit energy?
>
>Peter

If the accelerating charges are in a medium that is (acoustically) vibrating,
then perhaps configurations in which energy is reflected between acoustic
and charge vibrations are possible that do not radiate. I just ranted about
this in alt.sci.physics regarding an electron being a point-like particle or
not.

Can anyone help me plot solutions to simultaneous quadratic equations of the
Faraday and Riemann tensors in Maple? Photons and atomic emission would look
kewl in stereo VRML...

*****

>Are there any predictions for the physical size of an electron?

You can find a couple online theoretical descriptions at:
http://www.commonsensescience.org/

And
http://www.blacklightpower.com/book.html

They are static rather than dynamic models- rings or spheres of spinning
charge in force-balance. Mills theory describes why there is no radiative
orbital decay of atomic electrons - a mystery to those who see the world
through Maxwell's equations.

>I know the standard model represents it as a point, but I'm pretty
>sure no one really believes this.

See what the physics textbook at:
http://www.dse.nl/motionmountain/welcome.html says about the vacuum.
Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably true. Particles have
not been observed to drift relative to the vacuum, but rather relativity
describes them well. Therefore, an 'aether' does not exist! What is 'waving'
when photons and particles move through the vacuum is merely your
probability of finding them!

(And all we people, places and things are, are merely the probability of finding us too!)

And see what:
http://physics.about.com/gi/dynamic/off ... Fwalet.phy.
umist.ac.uk% has to say about the 'Dirac' field that supports particles, but
does not allow negative energies - like the 'holes' in semiconductors. I
didn't really understand 'normalization' until I read that. You can't have
the vacuum that supports the probability of finding a particle go negative,
'cause if it did, damn near anythin could pop out!

(A negative probability in a spin-momentum or Dirac field means the space around it will generate particles to be absorbed!)

I can't help but conclude the vacuum is a boiling anisotropic, nonlinear,
hyper-dimensional plasma. It supports solitons described by tangled waves in
the electromagnetic (charge) dimension and space/mass dimension (I was
surprised to recently learn mass can be expressed as the contraction of
space (mass can be measured in meters) - so yes, photons have 'mass' because
photons contract space they
travel through). Or in other words, the universe is (AFAIK) a 4 dimensional
nonlinear tapestry of momentum strings.

I would like to plot my concept of particles as tangled waves in charge and
space relative to (proper) time, perhaps using the 'Faraday' and 'Riemann'
tensors of Maples' Einstein functions. Thread-like momentum waves in charge
and space tangled around each other, holding each other in force balance. A
dynamic theory in contrast to those static theories I posted references to.
Particles would twist and vibrate with momentum, swimming through the vacuum
like little fishes.

No doubt it has been done and tried. Maybe someone will clue me in? Probably
not.

> The super string guys have some
>ideas, but it's all based on weird math.

All our cognitive models are about 'weird' math. As an engineer, when I
design a circuit (and amplifier or oscillator), I don't try to think of the
spice model of a FET. I think of the simple, idealized version of the
device. But the
Spice model, which takes an idealized function and tags on tens of
additional parameters is great for simulations. You discover the devilish
details, if your model can in fact be simulated, and in reasonable time.

...an intuitive understanding could lead students to develop solutions to such profound issues as clean abundant
(fusion or antimatter) energy, and consequently micro-MHD plasma turbojets
that could propel aircraft for penny's a mile a result in the colonization
of our solar system.

(If the structure of charge-space-time is understood, devices could be constructed that would 'untwist' particle momentum strings into energy strings - a lepton to photon lasing medium, which I described as a potential mode of operation for a fusor some time ago.)

Scott
DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 1:13 am
Real name:

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by DaveC »

Ummmm.....Scott covers a lot of ground here.... I would just like to address one small section of the landscape and make a comment about "simplicity", Occams Razor, whatever.

I also have some problems with quantum mechanical "descriptions" of some physical events... but I think the root of the problem is in the explanation itself, probably not the theory.

A physics prof in grad school long ago... (Quantum Mechanics ) said there were sooo many Q-M texts because the authors needed to explain the theory to themselves.

One must be a bit cautious with Maxwell equations, since they were a 19th century, brilliant though it was, attempt to organize the then known physical phenomena of electromagnetism into some sort of rational mathematical framework.

His insight is amazing. The theory succeeded remarkably well... until.... we got more sophisticated in our experiments. Then it was found to not give results that agreed with common interpretations of the theory.

The electron's rapid revolution around the nucleus was one problem. The classical atom should last a couple femto-seconds....But not knowing the theory, the atom continues. So Bohr says..." what if the electron just doesn't radiate energy." Presto!! Apparent solution. Desperation Physics to the rescue. Bold, daring, confounding... but in the right direction.

Incidentally, rotating small globs of charge, rings of charge, shells of fluctuating probability density, or whatever.. all radiate according to classical physics... so configurational mumbo jumbo, doesn't bail us out here. And I for one.. dont know WHY electron orbits are stable. But they obviously are.

So simplicity is relative. Diagonalize the matrix is what we try to do. Get a coordinate system that make the description as simple as it can be. We are still on our way to finding that vantage point for the physical world.

Dave Cooper

I have some glimmers of ideas that are somewhat satisfying regarding single electron "diffraction" through two holes... but I won't bludgeon anyone with them right now.

So ..
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by Richard Hull »

I'm always glad to hear theorectical thoughts, especially when they cut through the BS of lock step standard model stuff. I have expounded here before and will not expand on those thoughts.

It is very important that a firm foundation be placed for understanding core issues at the sub atomic level. Unfortunately, I feel that below a certain level, commonsense fails. This will gratify the mathematicians and far out theroists. Unfortunately they have long ago severed any real physical connection to the universe with assumptions needed to make their math work. The wisest amoung them realize this.

Working from good observations in the 20's and 30's, they severed the physical link with assumed point particles and made a basic quantum structure based on math which was somewhat predictive - Predictive enough to handle most all electronic interactions that seemed bizarre at first glance.

Once we started really dipping deeply into the subatomic, following WWII, the observations became more inferential and the theories diverged ever more from hard fact and steered deeper into the purely mathematical. Mathematical models sent us off insearch of dreamed up entities. While not seen on bubble chamber tracks, these particles are deduced from two seemingly unrelated nuclear events among tens of millions on one or two plates among hundreds or thousands of bubble chamber images. It worries me that with samples so large and not having to actually see the particle, what are the probabilities that a line can be drawn between to unconnected events that will satisfy most any hypothesized particle! Therefore, I chortle gently at this and that great new discovery 6 orders of magnitude below nuclear dimensions and uncertainty's unpredictable gate.

When we base work on the probability of several events which are themselves only probabilities, we are not doing science we are rolling the dice. With a sufficiently large sampling, we WILL find just what we are looking for whether we dreamed it up while sitting on the toilet or after struggling with the most complicated mathematics for weeks on end seeking mathematically justified predictions.

I feel that below a certain level of size and mass and at times of small enough period, all logic and reason leave nature and no mathematics, no matter how devinely inspired, just fail. To look there for answers is a fools errand.

For me, this is at the level of the major particles, electron, proton, neutron. "particules" (mesons, and finer material) as I call them are debris from another level of universal energy concentration which will yield no useful or controlable wheelwork for man. Such energy densities do not occur in nature except in the rarest of instances needed to redistribute and kineticize matter and separate locked up charge.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
guest

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by guest »

Dave Cooper wrote:

> I also have some problems with quantum mechanical "descriptions" of some physical events... but I think the root of the problem is in the explanation itself, probably not the theory.

That is what I'm discussing. No math, no 'theory', just an interpretation that could make enough sense to result in a design of something. Understanding, or just assuming, that particles have structures and fields could lead to smarter, rather than harder, 'fusing'. Remember the old superglue commercials, of the workman holding on to his hard hat, which was glued to a beam? It may take tons of tension to snap a superglued joint, but it only takes a few ounces of shear or torque to do it 8^)

> Incidentally, rotating small globs of charge, rings of charge, shells of fluctuating probability density, or whatever.. all radiate according to classical physics... so configurational mumbo jumbo, doesn't bail us out here. And I for one.. dont know WHY electron orbits are stable. But they obviously are.

I'll try to explain:

Imagine a chung of composite ceramic; a piezoelectric dielectric and ferromagnetic ferrite. Both an electric and magnetic fields cause it to experience force and compressive displacement along the field lines. And assuming the material is unpolarized, no bias field, a positive or negative oriented field will cause the same physical or acoustic contraction displacement. And if a static field is present, a mechanical force will cause the electric or magnetic flux density to change - the ceramic will act as an actuator or generator, it is an electromagnetic transducer.

Consider now an electromagnetic pulse at the center of a large block of ceramic. Perhaps a beta-emitting radio-isotope. The electric pulse is transduced into a mechanical pulse, and mechanical pulse is transduced into an electromagnetic pulse.

A soliton is a wave-pulse in a (typical dispersive) nonlinear medium. So what I'm saying is waves of charge and vibration get tangled together to form a soliton. Consider E=mc^2 and the Poynting vector. Electrmagnetic waves are momentum. The rate of change of electromagnetic waves, is a change in momentum, which is a force, a radiation reaction, which bends the vacuum - the Riemann tensor.

Another metaphor for this is the 'Levitron' magnetic levitating top. A dipole magnet defies the (?) theorem because of its angular momentum. Just as a satelite 'falls' around the earth, the Levitron keeps attempting to flip over, but gyroscopic precesion 'gyrates' the momentum at right angle! In a similar way, particles trade energy between the acoustic and electromagnetic fields. Vibrating space bends the flux of particles that attempt to electromagneticaly radiate in closed flux surfaces.

I don't think you can reconcile radialy accelerating charge and Maxwells equations. But if you consider the medium Maxwells equation in is piezoelectric and ferromagnetic, and supports acoustic vibrations (and the vacuum does!) then you can see how waves of electromagnetic charge (Faraday Tensor) and acoustic displacement (Riemann Tensor) orbit one another in solitons, become entangled threads in 4-space.

And the periodicaly contracting space (remebering that space contracts twice on each cycle - just the way a transformer core vibrates at twice the frequency its fluxed by) becomes more electromagneticaly 'dense'. And a dense region of higher permiability and permitivity than a surrounding region will refract electromagnetic waves, and change their wavelength - change their proper time - dilate their 'clocks'!

Consider gravity now - which bends the path of photons and can 'refract' the paths or timelines of particles. In fact an interesting paper describes General Reletivity in terms of modified permiability and permitivity, rather than warped geometry. paper http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9909037
"Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity"

This leads to an inside-out perspective of the vacuum. The vacuum is like a gas, and particles are merely trapped vibrations, solitons, at particular locations. Vibrational momentum is constantly flowing in and out of the region the tangle, the particle, is located.

Times run out for now. If there is further interest, I will rant some more (or you google search to see what I posted at alt.sci.physics last week).

Scott
DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 1:13 am
Real name:

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by DaveC »

One challenge with these types of discussions is overall consistency in the use of terms and concepts.

Maxwell's Equations predict that accelerating charges radiate energy. And accelerating charges DO radiate energy. This is not empty theory... ask any accelerator person about it. Bend an e-beam and you have serious radiated energy.

The free electron laser operates this way and while present wavelengths are in the infrared range (microns), plans are to go to much shorter wavelengths, even to x-rays. This will present a very interesting situation. For x-ray radiation at high enough energy, has wavelengths of atomic size. If the radius of curvature has a lower limit below which radiation ceases, then we should see an abrupt fall off in output efficiency. I don't know where we are on that score. Every partcle accelerator produces radiation arising from accelerating charge. It is predictable and demonstrable. The conundrum here is that this process does not work at atomic scale.. not because of any grand schema being violated... but because atoms exist, and are reasonably stable.

Further, when creating an ion, the energy to pull the electron away from its non-radiating orbit, is conserved and handed back when you let it rejoin to neutralize the ion.

When we make very sensitive measurements of low pressure gasses, using a Mass Spectrometer, we do so with small numbers of widely separated ions. (Mean free paths are in meters) They must be non- interacting or the measurements don't happen.

Energy conservation is thus obeyed at the atomic scale, but energy radiation under charge acceleration is not. But... only in the small scale. In the macro scale...energy is radiated.

So Q-M creates mathematic frameworks to predict these results. The math does not EXPAIN it... it merely predicts experimental results -with quite good accuracy. Not much more insightful than calling out a polynomial curve fit for some data on Excel. You, the experimenter have to have a theoretical basis for interpreting your data. It is here that we struggle to have a physical concept of the processes.

Streams , strings, donuts points or globs of charge... are in need of something to hold them together... since like charges repel. the electron consists of a quantity of charge that when assembled from infinity to the oft quoted radius of 10^-15 to 10^-17 m, requires more energy (something like 300 MEV) than the rest mass energy of 0.511 MEV. How is this possible? I don't know.. but we do have these lil negative guys all over.

But please keep up the theorizing.. don't let me discourage anyone.. because obviously we ( I ) still dont really know.. much about all this.

Dave Cooper
guest

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by guest »

Gosh there was a lot of stuff here.

I think the question was how do electrons orbit a nucleous without doing a Maxwell and radiating thier energy away. Perhaps I will prove myself a fool by speaking but it was my understanding that electrons do not "orbit" a nucleous so much as they exist as a wave function about the nucleous.

That is electrons fit in thier place in an atom and are thus "stable" and only radiate when they change atomic shells and have to acheive another equilibrium state. Which they do by emitting or absorbing a photon.

Of course outside the atom electrons and all other charged particle do the Maxwell. I think the Orbit stuff is what they tell high school teachers sort of a conceptulization aid.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by Richard Hull »

I find orbiting electrons or wavey electrons loitering about in shells all poor physical concepts.

The shell idea is a good one for crude understanding and computational work, but no one really knows the reality of what the electrons are or how they are situated about an atomic nucleus.

All we are sure of is what APPEARS to be the case based on secondary and tertiary data evolved on a macroscopic scale.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
guest

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by guest »

Yes they make poor physical concepts, but then again we are talking about the realm which creates the physical concepts we deal with on a day to day basis. So the concept of an orbit probably does not apply to electrons in close proximity to the nucleous.

While I tend to agree that no one really knows the nature of electrons or anything else for that matter - nature does seem to reduce to the absurd - never the less I think once one is divorced from the partical wave duality - I use the term wavicles to describe matter and energy - the notion of charged particle having relationships where they simply fit with each other is very satifying, logical, and useful.

Something on the order of the various bands in the asteroid belt where bodies resonate with Jupiter's massive gravety might be a better analogy than the simple orbit concept we were all taught in high school. Not teh orbits of the astroids themselves but the idea that the physics only alows them to be in certian positions. If electrons orbited the nuc they would Maxwell to nothing thus they do not "orbit" like you I do not "know" what they do I infere.

But then again humans don't really understand anything except in how that thing relates to something else, all our reductions are to the absurb almost by definition. I tend to agree with you on your main point if we can't make a wheel out of it it hardly matters.

Further I bristle at the physists who endless chase smaller particles generally on the taxpayers bill with no sign of useful aplications.
guest

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by guest »

Dave Cooper wrote:

> The free electron laser...will present a very interesting situation. For x-ray radiation at high enough energy, has wavelengths of atomic size. If the radius of curvature has a lower limit below which radiation ceases, then we should see an abrupt fall off in output efficiency.

Isn't there something called 'beamstrahlung'
http://www-acc-theory.kek.jp/members/ca ... 0000000000
http://www-acc-theory.kek.jp/members/ca ... 0000000000

>The conundrum here is that this process does not work at atomic scale.. not because of any grand schema being violated... but because atoms exist, and are reasonably stable.

Perhaps Maxwell's equations do not acount for acoustics - the deformation of spacetime.

>Streams , strings, donuts points or globs of charge... are in need of something to hold them together... since like charges repel. the electron consists of a quantity of charge that when assembled from infinity to the oft quoted radius of 10^-15 to 10^-17 m, requires more energy (something like 300 MEV) than the rest mass energy of 0.511 MEV. How is this possible? I don't know.. but we do have these lil negative guys all over.

Yes, those models I posted discuss 'charged dust' distinct and seperate, in, the vacuum. What I describe is the structure of the nonlinear vacuum itself vibrating and changing its characteristic impedance, geometry, acording to the energy/momentum and its waveform.

Scott
guest

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by guest »

Sebastian wrote:

>my understanding that electrons do not "orbit" a nucleous so much as they exist as a wave function about the nucleous.

Yes, a vibration mode. Now what is it that is vibrating? An electromagnetic field in the vacuum, or charged 'mass'? What is mass? Mass can be shown to be equivalent to electromagnetic energy/momentum, and to distance. Again, its the vacuum itself that is vibrating.

This is such a difficult notion?

Scott
guest

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by guest »

Sebastian wrote:

> While I tend to agree that no one really knows the nature of electrons or anything else for that matter -

Are you certain of that 8^)

> Further I bristle at the physists who endless chase smaller particles generally on the taxpayers bill with no sign of useful aplications.

For thousands of years science simplified nature, to the realm of a few particles. Then particle accelerators started creating hundreds of new particles, about the time quantum theory began describing matter as waves, and equating matter with energy. States of the vacuum.

The most obsured thing about physics I find today is the discarding of an 'aether', because particles were not found to drift in it, and not saying that particles and atoms were made 'of' it.

How can you polarize a vacuum - nothing, void? How can you vibrate a void? How can you bend the space and time of a void, let alone if a void has space and time is it a void? And since space and time is only meaningfull in terms of the matter and energy (which have been shown to be waves) which reside in it, I conclude there is no true 'vacuum' in our universe!

Scott
guest

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by guest »



Scott Stephens wrote:
> Sebastian wrote:
>
> >my understanding that electrons do not "orbit" a nucleous so much as they exist as a wave function about the nucleous.
>
> Yes, a vibration mode. Now what is it that is vibrating? An electromagnetic field in the vacuum, or charged 'mass'?

The vacuum must be vibrating against itself - other wise how does one eliminate the problems of origin. Perhaps similare to a photon which essentially seems to provides its own "either" as it travels. So no I don't think its that difficult to concieve just different from the way we've been taught to describe the atomic and sub-atomic realm.

>What is mass? Mass can be shown to be equivalent to >electromagnetic energy/momentum, and to distance. Again, >its the vacuum itself that is vibrating.

Conception can be aided I believe by chunking out the notion of mass all together. After all mass is a totally infered concept, we measure forces not mass. Relativity for example becomes much easier to swallow if one uses momentum rather than mass, even rest energy can be described as a "rest momentum" after all wavicles do behave as if there was a component moving at c even at rest. Relativity not only can work as Einstien stated but even make some sense.
>
> This is such a difficult notion?

No.

>
> Scott

Follws some ponderings perhaps foolish ones on my part.

Once one elininates mass from consideration it seems that many concepts such as inertia can be more readily understood. Observe that any difference in velocity creates a time differential between the two objects. Inertia resolves into the unseen acceleration against the axis of time. Time then resolves into any of at least four spacial dimensions depending on ones orientation.

Dimesnions only exist as a reference to something, so the universe completes its reduction to nothing having a rather intense conversation with itself. One supposes that gravitational time dialation results from having all that spacial dimensional self referencing crammed into itself?

Unfortunately I am mathamatically impared due to trauma or maybe its just lazyness, but it would seem that these notions should be rather simple to formulate.

So that is my pet theory of everything.

How this will get us to a working fusion machine in my basement I have not a clue. Like Richard I am more interested in something that heats my basement. Or at least provides a beautiful plasma.
DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 1:13 am
Real name:

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by DaveC »

A couple of points in reponse to this interesting discussion.

I realize incidentally, that while it is not to be taken too literally, electrons do actually have regions where they are found. Whether you like to think of those regions as a probability shell, or whatever, it doesnt really change things. Personally, I prefer the picture of a "shell" as region around the nucleus where you will observe the electrons presence some percentage of the time during which you make observations. Over the total volume of that "shell" the electron is there 100 percent of the time. This seems to be a physically satisfying interpretation of the probability density function, whose square is the probability of a physically realizable measurement..

What I struggle with about concepts of vibrating vacuum, or "acoustical" process is the apparent difficulty in performing some type of definitive experiment to establish that concept in favor of another. Asserting that vacuum vibrates... doesn't prove it does. Are there tests that could be done to "prove" this view is correct?

Primitive though it is, the physical construct we have called the electron manifests itself, even in very small numbers as a distinct, movement of charge. We call this a "current". Modern ammeters measure as little as a few attoamperes..(1E -18 amperes) or just a few dozen electrons/second. Whatever is actually moving amongst the atoms of the conductor, is doing it quite slowly, (on the average). The average current no doubt consists tiny current pulses from the individual electrons. I have actually seen some evidence of this in dielectric leakage measurements in the femto ampere range.

The point I was trying to make earlier, is that the principle of correspondence... which helps preserve our sanity in these discussions.... says that representations should actually predict the behavior observed.

Now if the simple idea of a movement of "charges" as a current... is more or less a continuous thing from mega amperes to atto amperes...about 24 orders of magnitude... we are dealing with a relatively useful concept... that of a localizable quantity of charge... we call the electron.

At the finer, subatomic scale, the actual internal structure of the beast, is really a separate issue and some stimulating concepts have been aired here, as well as elsewhere.

I heard a paper years ago discussing the "size" of an electron... pointing out that the usual process of shooting electrons at each other at higher and higher energies, only leads to smaller and smaller "sizes" for the electron. The kinetic energy of the electron localizes it., shrinking the envelope of its wavefunction. Thus the model emerging is rather like a soft compressible structure.

What this structure does around the nucleus is simply not known. It clearly finds a stable configuration, that is both localizable when chemical bonding occurs, energy conserving as I noted earlier, and only slightly bound in the cases of conducting atoms. To be no longer "electrostatically" attracted to the oppositely charged core without some sort of motion, and if in motion , to simply not radiate energy, as is the case when unbound, is the issue I find fascinating.

Dave Cooper
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by Richard Hull »

I agree with Dave Cooper on the concepts useful for working with the electron, for that is all we can do is work with the concepts to make real world things happen. The concepts were hammered out over a long time. Whether they have any genuine physical embodiment is anyone's guess.

It is interesting that the electrons in any stable atom cannot be detected by their charge except through guess work based on chemical bonding. This theory was built up empirically as well over the years.

The only way physical electrons can be seen or measured is free of the atom. An ionized atom is a charged atom which has undergone some trauma of ten or more electron volts. If negative, we say an electron has been added. Positive charge indicates one is missing, having uncovered nuclear charge. The free electron is a distinct charge and it is from this that all of our knowledge was gathered and further inferences made. There appears to be no such thing as a free, thermalized electron here on earth. (too much charge floating about to let them be still) They are always kineticized and study of them in a static or slowed down state is just not possible.

Electrons or their kineticized influence represent a current as Dave has said. This is a mystery of bulk matter of which we know nothing, but assume much. What we assume is predictive and that is good enough for the making of wheelwork.

The classic wigglewand experiment in the femto and pico amp range is a classic and bizarre example of energy transfer which we, I think, stupidly attribute to a field.

Fields are at once useful to the mind and yet repugnant to the soul for internally we realize it is as much of a stretch towards magic as the aether is, but someone had us settle for field magic instead of aether magic. Fair thinkers who have been taught the world is one of fields, who can disassociate themselves from the concept, will have to readily admit the concept is totally magical and designed to keep us in a safe, touchy, feely, conceptualization mode.

Alas, for all my bluster, I offer no substitute and work with field concepts daily, but feel their weakness and paucity of value more and more when thinking about core issues.

A charged teflon rod is waved at a rate of 0.1 hz through an arc of only about 6 inches. At a distance of 12 feet there is placed a 1 foot diameter metal sphere of isotropic capacity (~13pf). A good electrometer connected to the ball will show a voltage swing of over 300 volts (-150 thru 0 to +150volts at that range. A little figuring will see that countless trillions of electrons were made to huff it in and out of the meter in an ebb and flow. RF field? NO Electrons flowing between wand and ball? NO, I am afraid not. This is more of an open capacitor experiment where the "electrostatic field" is in play. According to Maxwell we are dealing with "displacement" currents. He dreamed this up to make things work where there is are NO conductors, but energy transfer in the capacitor. It remains a total mystery still, though his math works tolerably well as it was based on observation. We just don't have a real physical grasp of what really happens here in this experiment. But seeing it in real life opens a new world of marvel and the hard realization as to just how electrical the world is. An unending ebb and flow of energy between all macroscopic things in motion involving billions of electron charge units, AT MINIUM which forever remain unseen, unfelt, unheralded.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
guest

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by guest »

Scott Stephens wrote:
> Sebastian wrote:

> >my understanding that electrons do not "orbit" a nucleous so much as they exist as a wave function about the nucleous.

> Yes, a vibration mode. Now what is it that is vibrating? An electromagnetic field in the vacuum, or charged 'mass'?

>The vacuum must be vibrating against itself - other wise how does one eliminate the problems of origin. Perhaps similare to a photon which essentially seems to provides its own "either" as it travels. So no I don't think its that difficult to concieve just different from the way we've been taught to describe the atomic and sub-atomic realm.

A photon provides its own 'aether'? The problem with the conception of fields and particles. You get this flux stuf cluttering up the place. The vacuum is a continuum, and the photon is a state of the continuum, and if you say the continuum is 'aether' fine, but if you call it a vacuum you have (IMHO) contradicted yourself because, nothing is neither continous or discontinous, nothing is nothing. But I'll say vacuum to prevent confusion.

>all wavicles do behave as if there was a component moving at c even at rest.

That is the notion I get from Minkowski & GR!

> Relativity not only can work as Einstien stated but even make some sense.

>Dimesnions only exist as a reference to something, so the universe completes its reduction to nothing having a rather intense conversation with itself. One supposes that gravitational time dialation results from having all that spacial dimensional self referencing crammed into itself?

If you look at the reference (Puthoff) I posted, it looks a lot like mass and the contraction of space associated with the mass can be described by saying it is the refractive index of the vacuum or a scaling of electromagnetic permiability and permittivity. How can nothing have a refractive index, permittivity or permiability? Yet the vacuum with gravity behaves as if regions of it are warped, or regions of it have a different characteristic impedance/phase velocity/permiability and permittivity.

The problem with assigning warped characteristic impedance rather than warped distance is you must say the 'speed of light' differes depending on where you are in space, and this is certainly heresy! But in the end, the math says the same thing. Being an engineer that works with piezo ceramics and ferromagnetics, I find it more comforting to think space has warped impedance, resulting from density (acoustic) deformation, rather than being a scientist fluent with math and a hundred years of working with the premise EVERYTHING is relative to the one great, immutable constant - the speed of light.

>How this will get us to a working fusion machine in my basement I have not a clue. Like Richard I am more interested in something that heats my basement. Or at least provides a beautiful plasma.

It is profoundly significant! The great obstacle to fusion is anomalous transport - the radiation of power out of an unstable plasma. If the plasma could be put in a state similar to an atom, so it absorbs its own radiation, our jets would be flying through the air in streams like traffic on a highyway at rush hour. We would be taking trips in giant, hotel sized ships to the outer planets and the tree hugging usefull idiots and their federal Bolshevic handlers wouldn't be dumbing down (trying to make more 'efficient' which means decrease the capacity and making more expensive!) our toilet bowls, computers, appliances, cars, et. to save the earth which apperently labored 5 billion years to produce creatures capable of giving a millisecond of pause to contemplate morality before decieving and devouring their tasty neighbors.

Bending space with its electromagnetic 'flux' can potentialy lead to the untangling of the momentum oscillating between charge and space, changing its form, from particle to photon.

Scott
guest

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by guest »

>What I struggle with about concepts of vibrating vacuum, or "acoustical" process is the apparent difficulty in performing some type of definitive experiment to establish that concept in favor of another. Asserting that vacuum vibrates... doesn't prove it does. Are there tests that could be done to "prove" this view is correct?

Plenty, especially intriguing are those dealing with gravitation, such as atomic beams and Bois-Einstein condensates.

>Primitive though it is, the physical construct we have called the electron manifests itself, even in very small numbers as a distinct, movement of charge. We call this a "current".

I see the universe (vacuum) is one big, nonlinear material, that allows momentum waves in differently scaled dimensions of charge and space to get tangled. We call the centroids of these tangles 'particles'. Then the slow or static perturbations resulting from these tangles drift around, and we see them as distinct particles with 'fields'. Like fish, we don't understand the ocean we're in, and when we see a bubble or a current of bubbles in the water we think it, rather than everything around it, is 'something'.

Scott
guest

Re: Fusion - 'Untwisting' particles?

Post by guest »

>According to Maxwell we are dealing with "displacement" currents. He dreamed this up to make things work where there is are NO conductors, but energy transfer in the capacitor. It remains a total mystery still...An unending ebb and flow of energy between all macroscopic things in motion involving billions of electron charge units, AT MINIUM which forever remain unseen, unfelt, unheralded.

Couldn't you make the same observation about the gas and the atmosphere? If you are in a closed chamber and blow up a balloon (from a compressed gas cylinder for instance) you notice a barometer on the other side of the room change. Your balloon must have an invisible 'field' around it? Or perhaps the room isn't empty, but full of little particles of 'gas' to light to measure but vibrating very quickly and transfering a 'displacement current' of momentum?

Scott
quinnrisch
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:26 pm
Real name:

WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS

Post by quinnrisch »

Simply: Pauli exclusion principle.

DEtail: In the ground state of an electron around a nucleus the electron is still, that is to say it's wave function actually straddles the nucleus. It is almost a guassian about the nucleus. It is actuall still, and not moving, and therefore cannot radiate, even classically.

NOW, if there is an electron in an actual orbit around the nucleus it has to be able to "fall" to a lower state because the pauli exclusion principle says 2 electrons cannot have the same quantum numbers. Therefore the electron in the higher orbit is stuck there, almost stacked on top of the one in the center, and therefore it cannot fall and raditate.\\

All other electrons follow the same line of reasoning. If you question weather or not an electron is still in the center of of the nucleus in its ground state just plot the wavefunction in 2-D horizontal axis radius, and vertical the probability; you will see that the probablity peaks at radius equal to 0.
guest

Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS

Post by guest »

quinnrisch wrote:
> Simply: Pauli exclusion principle.

Is the 'Pauli exlusion principle' a cause, or a definition of an effect? How can a principle be a cause?

Electromagnetic momentum self-consistantly affects the spacetime it resides in. An impedance mismatch or spacetime discontinuity will reflect energy - a force will exist between non-conjugate charge-mass spacetime configurations.

Bois - Einstein seem to be an exception to this, as their spin, momentum configurations are analogous to lasers.

Scott
quinnrisch
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:26 pm
Real name:

Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS

Post by quinnrisch »

THe Pauli exclusion principle is a consequence of the rules of quantum mechanics and has been seen to be empirically true. This principle is the name of a property of electrons and all fermions. It is hard to say what came first the chicken or the egg in this arguement however and I understand some of your confusion, but there are experiments that show this same property so saying that this is entirely an ad hoc arguement is untrue. All this says is that electrons cannot be identically superimposed on one another, just like how you cannot be standing exactly where I.

Electrons are fermions and therefore cannot, by definition and empirical observation, form a Bose-Einstein condensate because a Bose-Einstein condensate is when all the bosons in a system have exactly the same energy and quantum numbers. If an electrons were to have the same energy and quantum number as another electron its wave function would collapse because it is anti-symetric, that is to say it is that the electron's wave function is composed from two equal magnitude positive and negative functions that if added with another exact copy would cancel out. Bosons do not have this property, they are sysmetric and when added together with another exact copy only makes a larger wave function.

You are right in saying that Bose-Einstein condensates are analogous to lasers. Photons are bosons and therefore can form a bose-Einstein condensate.

The atom is one of the greatest examples of how fields don't exist, but how virtual particles instead carry the force of "field" interactions. It is a little creepy I know but to think that humans could inately understand the universe and things we have never even experienced is even more ludicris.

I hope that this helped.
quinnrisch
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:26 pm
Real name:

Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS

Post by quinnrisch »

As a quick minor retraction: electrons by themselves cannot form Bose-Einstein condensates, but they can form Cooper pairs and then behave as bosons, much like He3, which is a fermion, but at VERY low temperatures has been shown to display superfuild motion just likes its boson isotope He4 does at a higher temperature.
DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 1:13 am
Real name:

Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS

Post by DaveC »

It seems to me that we are no closer to answering the original question. But we have enjoyed a quite a presentation of various models.

Hidden in the structure of Q-M are some very important assumptions about what can ultimately be known about subatomic particles. Statistical theory is invoked to bolster that view. But there seems a certain feeling of deja vu about this. Be on the lookout for another Copernicus..to sort it out.

Dave Cooper
quinnrisch
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:26 pm
Real name:

Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS

Post by quinnrisch »

I certainly feel like I have answered the question. Do you ask for more explaination when some one tells you that that a clocks hands move "clockwise". The electrons cannot be in the same place with the same energy and quantum numbers, just as you cannot be in the exact location as some one else.

I am sorry that there isn't a more mystical answer.
guest

Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS

Post by guest »

Dave Cooper wrote:

> Hidden in the structure of Q-M are some very important assumptions about what can ultimately be known about subatomic particles. Statistical theory is invoked to bolster that view. But there seems a certain feeling of deja vu about this. Be on the lookout for another Copernicus..to sort it out.

I came across an online paper that affirms what I (an "obsolete, mechanistic materialists") concluded:

http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/prob.as.logic.pdf "PROBABILITY THEORY AS LOGIC" E. T. JAYNES page 3:

"instead of covering up our ignorance with fanciful assumptions about reality, one accepts that ignorance but attributes it to Nature. Thus in the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum theory, whatever is left undetermined in a pure state is held to be
unknown not only to us, but also to Nature herself. That is, one claims that represents a phys-
ically real \\propensity" to cause events in a statistical sense (a certain proportion of times on the
average over many repetitions of an experiment) but denies the existence of physical causes for the
individual events below the level of ."

Scott
guest

Re: WHY ELECTRONS DON'T RADIATE IN ORBITS

Post by guest »

quinnrisch wrote:

> I certainly feel like I have answered the question. Do you ask for more explaination when some one tells you that that a clocks hands move "clockwise".

But why? Why don't Leptons and Bosons obey the same rules? Geometry perhaps, or because that's what the books and the proff's say? Just because God wants it that way?

Why can't I escape psychology and politics? I run but I can't hide.

> I am sorry that there isn't a more mystical answer.

The Shadow-Things whisper to me that the 'static' RMS average (not dynamic!) geometry of Leptons are sphericaly symetric and bosons are an eversion (inside-out). But I want to see for myself because they often lie to me =(

http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~jms/Papers/is ... r/opt2.htm

Scott
Post Reply

Return to “Fusor and/or General Fusion Theory (& FAQs)”