Jump to content
martillo

Hijack from Particles / waves

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

so I don't see how a stable configuration would ever be possible (even if it was stable at some value of separation, which it isn't)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might seem like everyone is 'ganging up' on you, but this is an important point.
Anything that has 'structure' has to have 'something' holding that structure together.
That same 'something' should, then, be able to render that structure asunder.
IOW, they cannot be fundamental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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.

 

Equilibrium1.JPG

there's a mistake, the equilibrium is at distance lambda/2, not lambda...

Edited by martillo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

 

The rings are clearly shown rotating individually  in the OP

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, martillo said:

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.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 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 ?

Nice simple question. +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, martillo said:

Please see my answer above...

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

 

My prediction: Both circuits would keep at a certain (varying distance) due to the monopolar term, which dominates at larger shorter 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.

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

It might seem like everyone is 'ganging up' on you, but this is an important point.
Anything that has 'structure' has to have 'something' holding that structure together.
That same 'something' should, then, be able to render that structure asunder.
IOW, they cannot be fundamental.

Very well put. +1

Edited by joigus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joigus said:

and thereby radiating. How come your photons radiate?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, martillo said:

They are not torus they are linear rings.

With respect, this is a prime example of not being specific enough, which you can't do in Physics.

Whatever the cross section of the ring, they are a linear distribution of charge curved into a ring.
Linear by itself would imply a straight line.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, martillo said:

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

What book is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, martillo said:

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.

If your answers here showed some connection to reality that I can measure, I would do that.

But so far it is all just assertion and no reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, martillo said:

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

 

4 minutes ago, martillo said:

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.

!

Moderator Note

The rules require you to answer the question here, not just say "read my book/blog"

Not putting a link does not allow you to circumvent the rules.

 
Just now, martillo said:

The theory agree and explain the short life timed "subatomic particles" found in high energy experiments.

!

Moderator Note

Show the calculations that demonstrate this agreement.

 
1 minute ago, martillo said:

Section 4.11 of the book predict some of them and introduce the approach to explain the rest. 

!

Moderator Note

NO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, joigus said:

dominates at larger shorter separations

This is actually a bit more complicated than I first thought, but my intuition seemed to be correct. The monopolar field would go like 1/r2. The force between two magnetic dipoles goes like 1/r4. At larger separations, the monopolar term would dominate, as I said first. You can find more details here:

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

In any case, the placing of the circuits is unstable, and be in no doubt that it would radiate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

"

Edited by martillo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, martillo said:

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.

"

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.

Edited by joigus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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.

Edited by martillo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.