 # martillo

Senior Members

143

## Everything posted by martillo

1. Particle Theory won. I have already posted how diffraction happens with these structures for the particles following Snell Law of course. Here you have it attached again.Photons diffraction.pdf
2. The elementary particles cannot be destroyed, they are just transformed into other ones. For instance, photons' elementary particles become neutrinos' elementary particles in photons' absorption processes. Why? That just in Relativity Theory may be. In this theory p= E/c= (mc2)/c= mc is compatible with a photon of mass m and velocity c. While the rings rotate with the same axis there is no torque, just attractions and repulsions. I well know Classical Physics but you don't recognize it. The problem here is that the Modern Physics of Relativity Theory and "Quantum Physics" are just wrong for me and I have something that can replace them… Yet to be developed further of course...
3. 1. True. There's energy accumulated in the structure composed by the two rings and it depends on the distance. The energy of the structure in equilibrium is (mc2)/2. For the photons the other half is in its kinetic energy at velocity c resulting in the total energy mc2. In this theory the photons have mass. There's a relation between mass and the magnetic field of the particles yet to be determined some way. I couldn't do that yet. As I said the theory needs further developments. 2. The equation of the equilibrium point would come from the equality of the attractive electric force and the repulsive magnetic force. Actually I didn't do it since it would involve elliptic integrals with no analytic solutions as far as I analyzed it. The diffraction experiments tell us that the equilibrium point is in lambda/2. I mean, analyzing the diffraction experiments where the Snell Law applies and taking into account that they are produced by trains of particles in equilibrium result the equilibrium distances in lambda/2. 3. I don't see torque in the structure. The rings are massless and vary instantaneously according to the electric an magnetic interactions. The mass is accumulated in the centre of the particles and follows F=ma law of course. I'm quite sixty years old now. Don't expect me to begin a Physics course at this time. It will fly, some day it will, when the manuscript could fall in the right hands...
4. That radiation is about electromagnetic waves radiation. In this theory they just do not exist and the demonstration is in Chapter Seven where it is also given a new interpretation of Hertz experiments showing that what antennas emit and absorb actually are photons not waves. The simple demonstration is the following: 7.1 ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES DO NOT EXIST The deduction of the existence of “electromagnetic waves” from Maxwell Equations is wrong because of a missing step. Once the planar waves are deduced as possible solutions to the set of four equations from Maxwell Equations it is absolutely necessary to ask: Which source for the electric and magnetic fields can generate those possible fields? If not, if no source is related to the fields, we will be leaved to admit that infinite waves exist in the space of all frequencies, intensities and in any direction. The solution for the electric and magnetic fields is an infinite plane with the same (constant) field, parallel to the plane, in the entire plane. Sources for them are just impossible. There's no source of field possible to generate that kind of fields. Even an infinite series of those solutions would have no possible source for their fields. Then it can be stated that “electromagnetic waves” cannot exist. As was presented in Section 1.1-III-e, the Electric and Magnetic Fields are assumed instantaneous. There is no delay in the action of the forces whatever the distance can be. The electromagnetic wave signal transmission is the unique phenomenon that seems to prove that the Electric and Magnetic Fields propagate at the c finite velocity. The experimental demonstration of the existence of electromagnetic waves was carried by Hertz. In the next sections we present a new interpretation of his experiments. It will be shown that actually signal transmission is carried by photons.
5. Please tell me what kind of radiation are you talking about and may be I could answer properly. If you are talking about Larmor radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_formula) as I said it does not apply because here the fields are instantaneous.
6. The elementary particles themselves do not radiate anything. I guess the radiation you talk about is consequence of retarded fields and retarded potentials as determined for electrons orbiting around a nucleus. In this theory the fields are all instantaneous and the electrons do not orbit around, they occupy fixed positions in equilibrium states with the protons in the nucleus.
7. Gets hard, too hard to explain it all... I will try to answer the questions I can answer posting in the thread but please take into account what i say even in the book: " I'm an Electrical Engineer not a Physicist. Is up to real physicists to take my work and develop a “New Physics”. My work should be understood as a startpoint. That's why I'm presenting the new theories here. It should be considered as I have solved the “engineering part” of the theories. I have no more time, no more resources and no expertise to develop it further. " And as I say at the main page of my site: " I CANNOT MAKE IT ALL! I already had a very hard work. Still much work remains to be done. Many things wait for a definitely proof. Many things wait to be developed further. Some new experiments must be done. A list of some further developments that would be needed by the new theory is presented in the “Further Developments” section. I have no more time, no more resources and no expertise to develop it further. I'm claiming for physicists to take that work and develop it further. I cannot do that. "
8. You know, I appreciate the interest of all of you, in disagreement sometimes, I know, but I can't answer properly so many questions at the same time...
9. The theory agree and explain the short life timed "subatomic particles" found in high energy experiments. Section 4.11 of the book predict some of them and introduce the approach to explain the rest.
10. Please visit my site on my profile. Forum rules don't let me post links to personal pages and promote books. You will find the book there.
12. You want a fast answer: Section 5.3 of the book: 5.3 Photons' absorption and emission
13. They are not torus they are linear rings. Yes is "compound rotation" someway. The tend to establish an equilibrium state of same angular rotation. But you know, I cannot show all details in this thread. Too large to show all the development of forces definitions and equations developments. That fills chapter One, Two and Three of the book...
14. Surely 100 years of photonics I will not be able to answer in this thread. As I say at the main page of my site: " I CANNOT MAKE IT ALL! I already had a very hard work. Still much work remains to be done. Many things wait for a definitely proof. Many things wait to be developed further. Some new experiments must be done. A list of some further developments that would be needed by the new theory is presented in the “Further Developments” section. I have no more time, no more resources and no expertise to develop it further. I'm claiming for physicists to take that work and develop it further. I cannot do that. "
15. Please see my answer above... I'm trying to answer others questions above but still new questions arises… I need some time for them...
16. Not at all. The attracting electric field is of order two in the distance. The repelling magnetic force is of order four in the distance. An equilibrium state exists. there's a mistake, the equilibrium is at distance lambda/2, not lambda...
17. Too many questions at the same time. Give me some time to answer all them. By the way, some of you didn't read some previous posts where your questions are already answered to other ones.
18. This is a different question than that of studiot. The electric fields attract the rings while the magnetic fields repel. There`s an equilibrium distance. The force you are talking about is just the magnetic force between them.
19. As I answered to MigL: In the new theory the elementary particles have a geometrical structure that cannot be broken into more elemental pieces in any way. They are the end on the smallest things in the universe. They are mathematical structures. The universe is essentially mathematical. You are costumed with point-like particles. This is not the case.
20. I don't know if I understand properly your question. The rings are rigid ones, they cannot expand.
21. By definition the elementary particles are made of rings with continuous linear distribution of charge. The total charge is that of the electron. the rotation of the rings around their center produce their current which at its time produce their magnetic fields. In this new theory photons do have mass and the following equations are verified simultaneously: Einstein E=mc2, De Broglie lambda=h/(mc), Planck E= hc resulting in m=h/(lambda.c) Their electric and magnetic fields produce opposite forces establishing equilibrium states at a distance equal to half of the De Broglie lambda. The Electric and Magnetic Fields are more complex than the classical ones having a factor s=root(1-v2/c2) (equivalent to the relativistic gamma) which becomes zero at light velocity c and so photons are not affected by fields "at rest". I don't understand what you are asking here. NO. In the new theory the elementary particles have a geometrical structure that cannot be broken into more elemental pieces in any way. They are the end on the smallest things in the universe. They are mathematical structures. The universe is essentially mathematical.
22. In my theory the Electric and Magnetic Fields have a factor s=root(1-v2/c2), same as Relativity Theory, explaining many "relativistic effects" but without any mass variation. The factor is in the fields, not in the mass of the particles. This factor becomes zero at light velocity c so photons are not affected by Electric and Magnetic Fields "at rest". I think both will curve slightly their path and they both will pass over continuing after their straight path. The theory agree with all observations and experiments I could analyze although many of them require a different explanation than the current ones. The theory disagrees, with Relativity, "Quantum Physics" and the "Standard Model" of elementary particles replacing all of them with an entire unique totally consistent new theory. The key features are that a structure is given to the elementary particles and the fields of forces are more complex than the classical ones explaining the "relativistic" and the "quantum" behaviors of them. This way for instance Einstein's equation E=mc2 remains valid but with a new physical meaning. Same way de Broglie law is valid with a little correction at very slow velocities (removing the discontinuity at zero velocity) and has a new physical meaning: it represents a distance between elementary particles, not a wave length.
23. I understand. My intention was to give an idea of what I'm talking about but I understand.
24. Yes I know. Mine is a new one challenging that yet needing to be tested the same way or harder.
25. I agree. That's only an analogy with a structure that could in principle be in agreement with the "wave-particle duality" concept. It is not a given structure for light or any particle. For all of you to have an idea of what I'm talking about, the special structure I gave for a photon is basically a pair of rings of current, one positively charged, the other negatively charged and travelling together at an equilibrium distance equal to half of the De Broglie lambda. They also have a protective shield around which acts in the case of collisions with other particles. The diffraction behavior is explained then as in the "Photons diffraction" pdf file I have attached. Photons diffraction.pdf
×