martillo

I have heard recognized physicists stating "Nothing can come from nothing" and if this is accepted as a postulate applying basic logic follows:

As something do exist now (for instance we exist) it can be deduced that:

_ The absolute nothing never existed. (If it it would have existed before nothing would have come up.)

_ Something always has existed.

Am I wrong in something?

I think this is important in the tries to explain the origins of the Universe. The Universe didn't come from nothing then, it came from something. Something that could have always existed before.

Not so easy to grasp may be but seems right...

And if the above is right, must we assume that Space and Time are things that just always existed?

Seems so...

23 minutes ago, studiot said:

Then how do you explain the rules for Snell's Law?

This was the original classical distinction between wave and particle theory of light (and other EM rays)

Which theory won ?

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

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Out of curiosity, what happens when a photon is destroyed? What happens to these rings of charge?

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.

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Photons having mass falsifies your conjecture.

We know, for example, the the photon momentum is E/c, which is inconsistent with them having mass.

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.

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Well, that would be a problem, if you don’t understand magnets exert/experience torque 

While the rings rotate with the same axis there is no torque, just attractions and repulsions.

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s scary enough that you’re an engineer who doesn’t understand physics

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...

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

1. The wavelength is energy dependent, so thus separation us not fixed

2. This isn’t a calculation (what’s the equation for this purported equilibrium point?)

3. You are ignoring torque

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

This is a cop-out. You run away from the responsibility of learning and working through basic science, which is known to work, and expect others to do this. Why would someone develop a model that’s so obviously at odds with how physics is known to work (basically, you’ve pre-falsified your ideas). This isn’t some cutting-edge case that demands new physics. This is physics that has a century or more of confirmation. Showing up and asserting you’re right but expecting others to do the work is not going to fly.

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...

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipole_radiation

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.

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

Then your "photons" are not elementary particles, because sure as hell they would radiate. Either that or Maxwell's equations don't hold for your charges.

Which one is it?

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.

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

I don't know others, but for all I care you could either be a street musician or a Nobel Prize winner in Physics and I would still tell you that your dipoles will radiate.

In fact, there is no way for me to know who you are, or the other way around. I could be a gorilla who's learnt how to type and studied physics, or the Sultan of Brunei. That shouldn't worry you in the least.

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.

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.

"

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...

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

You still don't get it...

If an electric and magnetic field are needed to hold this 'mathematical' structure together, then, an electric or magnetic field can break that structure. What would result ?

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. 

1 minute ago, studiot said:

What book is that?

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.

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

My prediction: Both circuits would keep at a certain (varying distance) due to the monopolar term, which dominates at larger separations, but oscillating because of the unstable 2-dipolar (in total quadrupolar) flipping effect, going like a higher inverse power of the distance, and thereby radiating. How come your photons radiate?

Your graph is incorrect. But even if you were right, the attractive branch would have to go upside-down, and the graph that you're showing is that of an unstable equilibrium.

Very well put. +1

A fast answer in reply to your too fast questions: You are wrong.

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

That too is a good simple question since  (EM) radiation is made of photons. +1

You want a fast answer: Section 5.3 of the book: 5.3  Photons' absorption and emission

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Actually I did read you previous posts, and found them to lack detail.

So help yourself and everyone else by providing the necessary detail.

In particular, you show two circular tori of charge, one positive, one negative.
You say these are rigidily connected and rotating about a common centre (I think, but I am not sure from the drawing since it is not shown there.)
You also say that each individual torus is rotating about its own centre.

This makes a compound rotation.

 

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...

36 minutes ago, joigus said:

As Ghideon and MigL are implying too, how do you recover known laws of physics? Other examples:

Do your photons go through each other at low energies, while scatter at very high energies, which is a known fact of QED?

Do they behave as they must when they scatter electrons? Do they contribute to mass and charge renormalization of the electron?

Why aren't there 0-spin photons? Why can't they flip? Your model seems to allow for it. Are you considering selection or superselection rules? If so, which are those?

Why aren't there multipolar states of those? More selection rules?

How do you account for the transversality of photons? The radiating EM field is always perpendicular to the direction of propagation.

How do you account for circular, linear, and elliptically polarised photons?

More coming. It's 100 years of photonics.

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.

"

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

Well, yes. But (gathering more arguments from above) there would be a monopolar electrostatic term which would be attractive going like 1/r², and then the attraction/repulsion (depending on the flip) which would go like 1/r and we could assume to oscillate chaotically, because the motion would be unstable, as Swansont pointed out. And it's still by no means clear to me why you can't make higher multipoles of these things.

Please see my answer above...

I'm trying to answer others questions above but still new questions arises… I need some time for them...

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

Exactly, they would surely flip. The whole thing is unstable.

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...

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.

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

As Swansont and Studiot have implied, but in my own re-phrasing: If the charges are separated, you need a non-local interaction to account for them being separated rigidly with no possibility of pulling or pushing one against the other. This exotic force would have to be repulsive and non-local, exactly compensating the mutual attraction between your positrin and negatrin. Charges polarize the space around them, so charged particles always have mass. How does that mass not appear in your photons? I hope it doesn't, as photons are massless.

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.

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

I say again, why not ?

You have posited a circulating ring of charge (two in fact, of opposite charge polarity).

What causes the charge in each ring remain in the ring, when electrostatic repulsion would cause them to break up and their charges to fly apart.

 

Invoking De Broglie does not help you for his theory has an additional force due to the field of the nucleus to balance this.

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.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Why do they rotate and not separate ?

 

I don't know if I understand properly your question. The rings are rigid ones, they cannot expand.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What is charges that gives rise to this current, and how does this happen considering the photon is massless?

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)

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What keeps these charges separated? Why are they not separated by external fields?

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".

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How does this behavior depend on photon energy?

I don't understand what you are asking here.

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

Then they are no longer 'elementary' or fundamental.
Which means they can be broken down into their constituents.
Even your 'positrin' and 'negatrin' have constituent charges and currents.

If you are basically going to 'replace' all of modern Physics, and account for the implications of that replacement, you'll need a much better argument than you've presented so far.

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.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

How does a single photon, that according to the idea has one positive and one negative side, interact with external magnetic and electrical fields? 

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".

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

If you have two laser beams, almost parallel, crossing each other at a narrow angle, what does your idea predict regarding the photons' interactions and the resulting "train(s)" of photons?

I think both will curve slightly their path and they both will pass over continuing after their straight path.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

How does your predictions match observations and the explanations available in the currently accepted theories and models?

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.

I understand. My intention was to give an idea of what I'm talking about but I understand.

21 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

This is completely inconsistent with quantum electrodynamics - an extremely successful and well-tested model.

Yes I know. Mine is a new one challenging that yet needing to be tested the same way or harder.