Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

Quote from Eric Walker

You are describing the conversion of a massive lepton (an electron) into something, presumably not a lepton (a photon?), traveling at the speed of light. Either there is no conservation of lepton number, or a massive particle is traveling at the speed of light. In either case, we are no longer talking about classical physics.

The instance of mass/energy conversion (two-way process) is described by Mills in Chap. 28 of his book. He uses only classical laws of Newton, Maxwell, Planck, De Broglie and Lorentz. Two super-posed photons of opposite spin and energy of 511k eV strike a third body. A spherical resonator cavity of radius alpha * Bohr radius in free space (call the Transition State Orbitsphere) is created. As a resonator cavity, it has a characteristic frequency such that the two photons will experience infinite impedance and therefore "freeze" from E&M fields traveling a light speed into charge. Two particles are formed, a positively charged positron and a negatively charged electron, also as two orbitspheres. There's a lot more, including how this process results in the creation of gravity as space-time contracts. But, yes, it's all from classical physics.

Quote from optiongeek

Two particles are formed, a positively charged positron and a negatively charged electron, also as two orbitspheres. There's a lot more, including how this process results in the creation of gravity as space-time contracts. But, yes, it's all from classical physics.

Do the two leptons travel at the speed of light in Mills's telling?

Quote from Eric Walker

Do the two leptons travel at the speed of light in Mills's telling?

No, charge/matter can never travel at light speed.

Quote from optiongeek

No, charge/matter can never travel at light speed.

Special relativity agrees with you on this detail, of course. Above you wrote, "When the radius is exactly alpha * Bohr radius, the charge is travelling at the speed of light. This is the instance of energy to mass conversion." Is that the charge of the electron that is travelling at the speed of light?

This is very interesting. I find the electron fascinating. So not a point particle. So maybe time to revisit the pilot wave theory? It explains the double split experiment. This is explained in Mills downloadable book? I do not want to change this discussion but would like to know how electron spin can be imagined, or a good reference.
It violates the speed of light if taken as a point particle. Intrinsic property (as most books say) does not work for me. Nor the math.

Randy Mills on the double split experiment:

Quote

Randell Mills 2 years ago
The view that an electron can go through both slits simultaneous and interfere with itself is not possible. Once the physical structure of the election is solved, then the supposed weirdness is dispatched. For example, the electron double slit interference pattern is due to the changing electric field of the incident traveling electron inducing currents in the conducting slits and the induced corresponding E&M fields of the currents cause a change in the angular momentum in the electron. The change in angular momentum in turn results in a transverse displacement in the electron position in the far field. The pattern of many electrons at a detector in the far field is that of the high and low intensity fringes of the so-called interference pattern; albeit, the physical mechanism does not involve interference. This is given in Chp 8 of GUTCP (www.blacklightpower.com). Other spookiness and spooky action false interpretations of phenomenon are given in Chp 42 (http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/). 

Quote from Eric Walker

Special relativity agrees with you on this detail, of course. Above you wrote, "When the radius is exactly alpha * Bohr radius, the charge is travelling at the speed of light. This is the instance of energy to mass conversion." Is that the charge of the electron that is travelling at the speed of light?

The charge velocity approaches light speed as the radius approaches alpha * Bohr radius. And in the limit, the conversion from matter to energy is accomplished.

One thing I'd like to point out that I suspect you've never considered. The mechanism I describe above of a spherical resonator cavity in free space is the first concrete definition of alpha ever devised. Alpha turns out to be a blueprint for energy to matter conversion. If you want to "freeze" a photon with the proper amount of energy (511k eV) into an electron, you start with a resonator cavity with a characteristic frequency that matches that photon's frequency. Why do you want to match the characteristic frequency of the photon? Because it will cause the photon to experience infinite impedance and therefore be unable to maintain its propagation through space. Why 511k eV? Because that's the rest mass of the electron. How do you design such a resonator cavity? It has to be a sphere in free space with a radius equal to alpha * Bohr radius. When you work out the inductance and capacitance of such a resonator cavity, the characteristic frequency (when adjusted for Lorentz invariance), is exactly the frequency of the 511k eV photon. This is the answer to Feynman's conjecture - "Every good physicist should put 1/137 on his wall and worry about it". Here is a succinct version:

Alpha, the fine structure constant, is the relativistically corrected ratio to the Bohr radius of the spherical resonator cavity in free space such that the characteristic frequency matches the photon with energy equal to the electron rest mass.

If you have a better definition for alpha I'm all ears.

Quote from optiongeek

The charge velocity approaches light speed as the radius approaches alpha * Bohr radius. And in the limit, the conversion from matter to energy is accomplished.

I think you're saying, then, that the electron charge does not circulate at the speed of light. Nonetheless, note that the increase in mass of the (massive) electron is unbounded as it approaches the speed of light. As the speed approaches the limit, the mass of the electron will approach infinity. What would the relativistic mass of the electron circulating at at radius 1/137 * Bohr radius be according to Mills's calculations? Perhaps we are no longer talking about ~ 511 keV/c^2.

Quote from optiongeek

If you want to "freeze" a photon with the proper amount of energy (511k eV) into an electron

Here we must talk about an electron and a positron in order to conserve lepton number and spin if we're discussing a photon becoming an electron. Above you mentioned an electron-positron pair, perhaps for this reason; is that the scenario we're still considering? In that case the energy would be (511 keV * 2 = 1.02 MeV). The scenario I had originally understood was that of an electron approaching an orbit at small radius around the nucleus; here we seem to be talking about a photon becoming an electron. Can you clarify the situation, so that I can better follow your discussion?

Quote from optiongeek

Because it will cause the photon to experience infinite impedance and therefore be unable to maintain its propagation through space.

According to special relativity, the the fact of a photon traveling at the speed of light is intrinsic to the photon. If you alter this detail, you will no longer have a photon, but something else, for the photon is always in motion. The phase velocity of light can be slowed down in certain media, however. Are you suggesting that in the atomic context at this small orbit, the phase velocity of the proposed photon-in-formation is somehow brought to a standstill?

Quote from optiongeek

If you have a better definition for alpha I'm all ears.

No, I have no definition for alpha to propose. I'm simply making an effort to understand the implications of your proposal.

Rather than try to answer your questions directly, I think the best approach is for me to post an excellent description of the pair production phenomena prepared by Jeff Driscoll. He's taken Mills' formulation and broken it down into manageable chunks. I was mystified by Mills' approach for years until I read Jeff's take on it - then it all became clear. And I mean that in a most profound way. Hope you are able to appreciate this as much as I did. . .

http://vignette2.wikia.nocooki…/latest?cb=20160427021229

Eric: According to special relativity, the the fact of a photon traveling at the speed of light is intrinsic to the photon.

If you take a trapped photon as a boundary condition and move it at the speed of light you will essentially get a flat disk like structure, that propagates at the speed of light. It can very well be that the photon
acording to MIlls does not solve a proper EM equations, but an equation where there are source terms consisting of mathematical objects, w of the kind so that the integral of w with a test function f is c f'(x) e.g.
the source terms in Mills equations are what is called mathematical distributions. This sounds weird and is a difficult subject to understand but essentially the structure you can find is derived from a orbitsphere in
a reference system moving at the speed of light which you in the limit compresses to a flat disk like structure in the lab reference system. So the photon is not of the same nature as e.g. radio waves and can be viewd as
a completely different spiecies than EM radiation - contrairy to how we are tought to view light. So you can envision these two disks colliding. Before collition they are moving at the speed of light. At the collition they
form an electron. Note that if I write down the movement of a photon in one reference system you would see points move at the speed of light. If we as a viewer start moving in the other directtion we could mathematically see that
indeed the speed of the light like disk is moving faster then light. But nature is lorenz invariant so we could as well distort time and space in a lorenz frame, recognize that we again are at rest (althogh now moving relative
the other frame but forget about it and after this transform the disk is moving at the speed of light again. But if we viewed ourself as moving and kept that point of view indeed the disk would move faster than the speed
of light mathematically speaking. It is is just so that we set up all the physics around us as being in a rest reference system and when we do that and measure the photon e.g. we consider our measurements our eyes and
not the math. Then indeed the speed of the photon is that of the light in all reference systems.

Quote from stefan

It can very well be that the photon acording to MIlls does not solve a proper EM equations .... This sounds weird and is a difficult subject to understand .... So the photon is not of the same nature as e.g. radio waves and can be viewd as a completely different spiecies than EM radiation - contrairy to how we are tought to view light. So you can envision these two disks colliding. Before collition they are moving at the speed of light. At the collition they form an electron.

This no longer sounds like purely classical physics, as was suggested earlier. It sounds like we might have to set aside not only QM, but Maxwell's contribution as well, for the present purpose.

How do two photons (each spin=1, total lepton number=0) collide to form an electron (spin=1/2, lepton number=1)?

Quote from Eric Walker

How do two photons (each spin=1, total lepton number=0) collide to form an electron (spin=1/2, lepton number=1)?

In GUTCP, every particle has h_bar of angular momentum. The electron's spin is multi-polar, with h_bar/2 in the z-axis, and h_bar/4 along the x & y-axes. The same goes for the positron. Angular momentum is conserved during pair production. The multi-polar configuration of angular momentum results in re-interpretation of the Stern-Gerlach finding.

> This no longer sounds like purely classical physics, as was suggested earlier. It sounds like we might have to set aside not only QM, but Maxwell's contribution as well, for the present purpose.

It's a reinterpretation of Maxwell's equation where you extend the possible solution to a broader mathematical space. Indeed it look like an innovation and that all is based on conclusions from allowing space
to form resonant cavities and their limits

Regards
Stefan

Quote from optiongeek

The "ground" state hydrogen atom has 511k eV stored as potential and kinetic energy in the orbiting electron so there is a large reservoir of energy that can be released. At the ground state, the electron is in force balance and the effective central charge is 1. If a photon is absorbed, the effective central charge felt by the electron will be fractional (1/n) and it will go to a higher orbit. Conversely, if an energy hole/trapped photon is absorbed, the effective central charge felt by the electron will be integral (n) and it will go to a lower orbit.

optiongeek: Sorry I very well understand Mills theory, but the hydrino part still has some holes!

If an electron travels below Bohr radius, then you need, as Mills states, an additional charge to compensate the centrifugal forces . This is only possible with a combined Lorenz force approach.

Thus please point me to the text, where the charge-equivalent forces/fields are generated/explained.

An other point you should explain (or ask the maestro himself): What is an energy hole photon?

Quote from Wyttenbach

optiongeek: Sorry I very well understand Mills theory, but the hydrino part still has some holes!

If an electron travels below Bohr radius, then you need, as Mills states, an additional charge to compensate the centrifugal forces . This is only possible with a combined Lorenz force approach.

Thus please point me to the text, where the charge-equivalent forces/fields are generated/explained.

An other point you should explain (or ask the maestro himself): What is an energy hole photon?

Display More

I thought I had provided a reference to the explanation for the energy hole concept - please review the text between equation 5.26 and 5.27 in Vol. 1 of GUTCP (available here: http://brilliantlightpower.com…P-2016-Ed-Volume1-Web.pdf). I don't know what you mean by "combined Lorenz force approach". However, the discussion in that part of the text is pretty clear. In particular, equation 5.27 explicitly shows the solution to the boundary value problem after the energy hole has been absorbed. Note that n = 1/p is what leads to the increase in effective charge felt by the electron.

Quote from optiongeek

I thought I had provided a reference to the explanation for the energy hole concept - please review the text between equation 5.26 and 5.27 in Vol. 1 of GUTCP (available here: brilliantlightpower.com/wp-con…P-2016-Ed-Volume1-Web.pdf). I don't know what you mean by "combined Lorenz force approach". However, the discussion in that part of the text is pretty clear. In particular, equation 5.27 explicitly shows the solution to the boundary value problem after the energy hole has been absorbed. Note that n = 1/p is what leads to the increase in effective charge felt by the electron.

optiongeek: No there is no explanation there. It's just verbal. The only known "energy hole photon" is called exiton, which also behaves like a particle.
As I already mentioned particle obey rules...

Based on other theories (Landvogt), we may assume that charge has a direct relation to magnetic energy. This energy is stored in the spin.

Final question: Do you see an orbital spin component in Mills spherical harmonics ?

Quote from optiongeek

In GUTCP, every particle has h_bar of angular momentum. The electron's spin is multi-polar, with h_bar/2 in the z-axis, and h_bar/4 along the x & y-axes. The same goes for the positron. Angular momentum is conserved during pair production. The multi-polar configuration of angular momentum results in re-interpretation of the Stern-Gerlach finding.

In addition there is the conservation of lepton number. In the present context, this means that if electrons are assigned a value of 1, positrons a value of -1, and photons a value of 0, the combined lepton number before and after the reaction must be the same. Stefan proposed that two photons (lepton number 0) combined to create an electron (lepton number 1). How is lepton number conserved in this process?

Quote from stefan

It's a reinterpretation of Maxwell's equation where you extend the possible solution to a broader mathematical space. Indeed it look like an innovation and that all is based on conclusions from allowing space to form resonant cavities and their limits

Am I correct in inferring, then, that you disagree with optiongeek when he says that "This is the instance of energy to mass conversion. All from classical physics"? It seems that we are dealing with something other than classical physics; among other things, a reinterpretation of critical parts of it.

Quote from Eric Walker

How is lepton number conserved in this process?

To my knowledge, GUTCP is silent on the issue of conservation of lepton number. It only discusses the conservation of angular momentum.