Jump to content
martillo

Hijack from Particles / waves

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, martillo said:

The elementary particles themselves do not radiate anything.

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?

Edit: Sorry, what did you say, elementary particles do not radiate?

Edited by joigus
Additional question

Share this post


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

Edited by martillo

Share this post


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

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.

 

Share this post


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

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...

 

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 hour 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. "

"

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.

Share this post


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

Edited by martillo

Share this post


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

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.

Photons having mass falsifies your conjecture.

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

 

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

 

44 minutes ago, martillo said:

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.

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

 

44 minutes ago, martillo said:

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...

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

Share this post


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

Edited by martillo

Share this post


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

Then it can be stated that “electromagnetic waves” cannot exist.

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Edited by martillo

Share this post


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

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.

You are piling up the violations.

A neutrino is a lepton with spin 1/2. It can’t just pop into existence.  Photon absorption reactions are inconsistent with a neutrino being involved.

Photons, OTOH, are bosons, and their number is not conserved.

 

1 hour ago, martillo said:

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.

Relativity is consistent with experiment. E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4

If a photon has mass, p≠E/c

You can’t change one part of physics without the effects rippling through other aspects of it. If you overhaul it, you have to overhaul all if it. And you need evidence to support your assertions.

 

1 hour ago, martillo said:

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...

Wrong for you? You don’t have your own personal universe.

Share this post


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

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...

!

Moderator Note

You are just making more and more claims that are completely unfeasible. You have provided no evidence for your claims (hardly surprising as evidence contradicts many of them).

Do not open another thread on this topic. And do not hijack any more threads.

 

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.