Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

  • I suspect that one could use this observation transform as a base to deduce those relatoins that Mills is applying


    Got find Stefan. A 4D wave is running front and backside and effectively needs "2 turns".


    You also find the 2phi factor in Mills 4D relativistic calculations as limit for radially moving mass. Thus this factor is a relativistic conversion unit from "mechanic potentials to maxwell flux".

  • There is a mystery why you get the same magnetic force for all loops. This lead to an idea that the electron loop couples with proton loops in an 1 to 1 fashion so that the system - the hydrogen atom is the union of all the coupled loops and this coupling is visible in the speed of light frame. The speed of light frame is remarkable in that the union of loops transforms to one loop on a shell, Now if we assume that the proton loop and the electron loop both have the same normal we would see that a charge element on the electron loop will indeed have a uniform force in the correct direction. This explains that the formula is in the "speed of light" frame.


    I have updated with better derivation of B (see the above link e.g. Transform. Worth noting is that this change of reference system is unclear mathematically, but tend to represent rules that represent some kind of physical model. If one can lead into proof that there is just a few rules that lead to GUTCP you should accept it as including in the model else if you realize that for every new equation new rules are invented than we are witnessing fudging. If there is a more mathematical transform that when used represents the physics then fine, we have something more. But to me atm, the exact nature of this transform is mysterious although I start to see the ruleset and how it is applied.

  • There has been som discussions about Mills statement about constant current density. To understand this point read Currents


    ok so allow me to try to get this straight. i don't quite follow what's meant by "constant current density", or perhaps it is that i am surprised that people would think that free space is an *UN*constant current density... or perhaps i don't know enough :)


    so the idea is, you have a photon whizzing round on the surface of a sphere (in a circle), and you get... current flowing at right-angles to the travel, *also* along the surface of the sphere, is that correct?


    and what dr mills says is, the current (ampage) is constant over the entire surface of the sphere, is that right? why does he not use the word "uniform"?

  • ok so allow me to try to get this straight. i don't quite follow what's meant by "constant current density", or perhaps it is that i am surprised that people would think that free space is an *UN*constant current density... or perhaps i don't know enough :)


    so the idea is, you have a photon whizzing round on the surface of a sphere (in a circle), and you get... current flowing at right-angles to the travel, *also* along the surface of the sphere, is that correct?


    and what dr mills says is, the current (ampage) is constant over the entire surface of the sphere, is that right? why does he not use the word "uniform"?


    If I wrote coinstant current I miss quoted, it should be uniform current density or constant current density, uniform is better e.g. |J(r)| is 1.234... or such, but not the direction. Note also that the speed is the speed of electron current which is the sum of uniform current loops. Mills uses a complex construction, but I just showed that with the loops normals forming a uniform density on the upper sphere, you get the same setup and Mills approach is over complicated. I might be wrong, the base of this assumption is the answer to this question question my assumption boils down that the Funk transform takes precisely all odd functions on the sphere to 0 and no one else.

  • If I wrote coinstant current I miss quoted, it should be uniform current density or constant current density, uniform is better e.g. |J(r)| is 1.234... or such, but not the direction.


    i don't think it was you, i was just trying to understand. okay! so! this is probably what all those "eigenvectors" things are about (maybe) - those have to be length 1.0, don't they? so basically the MAGNITUDE is uniform, but the DIRECTION is... anywhere. or, not anywhere, you know what i mean, there's different constraints on that.


    question: does the direction vector of the current have to be pointing along the surface of the sphere or can it point inwards or outwards?

  • i don't think it was you, i was just trying to understand. okay! so! this is probably what all those "eigenvectors" things are about (maybe) - those have to be length 1.0, don't they? so basically the MAGNITUDE is uniform, but the DIRECTION is... anywhere. or, not anywhere, you know what i mean, there's different constraints on that.


    question: does the direction vector of the current have to be pointing along the surface of the sphere or can it point inwards or outwards?

    All current vectors of the loops is pointing along the sphere which means that the sum of them also points along the sphere e.g. r*v_i = 0 => r sum_i v_i = sim_i rv_i = 0

  • All current vectors of the loops is pointing along the sphere which means that the sum of them also points along the sphere e.g. r*v_i = 0 => r sum_i v_i = sim_i rv_i = 0


    *wringing hands* exccelllent muhahahah oo sorry. ok that's what i thought, i just wanted to check.


    ok so let's think this through from an "intuitive" perspective. correct me if any of this is wrong or unclear


    the photon goes round on a great circle, but it goes round in a sine wave at the same time, where the wave magnitude at any two opposing sides (180 degrees apart) is going to be the opposite sign.


    the current flows at *right angles* to wherever the photon happens to be at any one point, transmitting a current (in effect) simultaneously in great-circles-that-happen-to-be-at-right-angles-to-the-photon-travel-path


    this is what gives the "total coverage" of the sphere with the "current density".


    the "jump"... is... i think... that the fact that the photon's travel is a sine wave and that its magnitude is +ve on one side and equal and opposite magnitude *directly* opposite means that the current density *has* to be uniform.


    proving that, though... :)

  • All current vectors of the loops is pointing along the sphere which means that the sum of them also points along the sphere e.g. r*v_i = 0 => r sum_i v_i = sim_i rv_i = 0


    you mean, the sum at *any given point* also points along the sphere, yes? ah wait... let me think it through...


    ok so i was thinking for a minute of a discrete event simulation, delta-x (computers), so you have x1 and x2 as points of a vector, that would fail because summing multiple points like that you would start to wander inwards, for sure. a *continuous* representation i.e. a series of current vectors that are definitely in a plane that touches the sphere at only one point (forgot the 3D version of a tangent, sorry), then *yes*, the sum of such would clearly also point along the sphere, simply because... all vectors are in that plane, there *is* no contribution from any vector which could move them out of that plane.


    what does *not* necessarily hold is that the magnitude of each *individual contribution* is uniform. howeverrrrrr.... it should be possible to take any one point, and go round in a circle from that point and trace back along its vector *back* to the photon that created that current. i bet you that this would result in a really quite simple sum related to the phase / magnitude which would easily allow calculation of the vector in terms of theta (phase).

  • you mean, the sum at *any given point* also points along the sphere, yes? ah wait... let me think it through...


    ok so i was thinking for a minute of a discrete event simulation, delta-x (computers), so you have x1 and x2 as points of a vector, that would fail because summing multiple points like that you would start to wander inwards, for sure. a *continuous* representation i.e. a series of current vectors that are definitely in a plane that touches the sphere at only one point (forgot the 3D version of a tangent, sorry), then *yes*, the sum of such would clearly also point along the sphere, simply because... all vectors are in that plane, there *is* no contribution from any vector which could move them out of that plane.


    what does *not* necessarily hold is that the magnitude of each *individual contribution* is uniform. howeverrrrrr.... it should be possible to take any one point, and go round in a circle from that point and trace back along its vector *back* to the photon that created that current. i bet you that this would result in a really quite simple sum related to the phase / magnitude which would easily allow calculation of the vector in terms of theta (phase).


    So the first thing to note here is that I'm assuming that the normals of the loops create a uniform density of the upper half sphere.

    If you think about it all loops that goes throigh a point on the spehere must have the normals on an ortogonal plane

    (orthogonal to the vector pointing to the point where we want to calculate the current) that goes through origo.

    No intersect such a plane with the upper half sphere and you realize that you will get normals all on a half circle. The velocity vector, the normal

    and the vector pointing to the point in question from an orthoganal system e.g. like coordiante axises just rotated. And hence the velocity

    vectors will also point to a half circle, this means that the magnitude of the resulting velocity is (\int_0^\pi v sin(theta)dt) / pi = 2/\pi v. Also

    the mean normal is pointig at the position you get by moving from the point in question, to the north pole and then further e.g. only a \theta movement,

    in total \pi/2 radians e.g. the \hat theta direction. This means that the direction is in the \hat \phi direction because the point is pointing in the \hat r direction

    and +/. \hat \phi = \hat\theta \hat r.


    The standing photon wave is basically the sum of plane waves in all directiones and if we consider a point on the sphere at radius r we can associate it with all plane waves

    moving in the direction that are all in the tangential plane and then sum it over all points on the sphere and you will realize that you then get the correct distribution of

    plane waves that represents the photon. Hmm maybe I have not answered your questions but insight is flowing and that's good

  • The standing photon wave is basically the sum of plane waves in all directiones and if we consider a point on the sphere at radius r we can associate it with all plane waves

    moving in the direction that are all in the tangential plane and then sum it over all points on the sphere and you will realize that you then get the correct distribution of

    plane waves that represents the photon.


    Mills model includes two steps. The base currents do not cover the sphere uniformly. Only the folding with the seconds layer OCF gives a uniform distribution that conforms to the spherical harmonics. Thus we have two different views of the situation. In the far field the charge and the current look like being uniform. Seen from e.g. the proton surface there is no uniform current and also no uniform density, because the proton has a magnetic moment.

    The magnetic moment can only exist when the current density say in Z direction is different from x,y directions. This effect naturally arises if you quit the sphere and switch to the torus surface.

    The non radiation solutions for the torus have been computed long before Mills/Hauss and can be read in the paper Alan linked a while ago.

  • The non radiation solutions for the torus have been computed long before Mills/Hauss and can be read in the paper Alan linked a while ago.


    gaah! :) forums are *the* absolute worst possible way to track information. the most stunningly insane example of this i have found was a link on peswiki which said, "please refer to this diagram on some random forum page SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY of a ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED page discussion" where each page was 20 messages per page, which should give you some idea of how completely useless forums are except for "momentary discussions".


    think "AOL BBS" gone mental. as if AOL wasn't insane enough as it was, spawning as it did the infamous "metoo posting" meme.


    caaaan i therefore please ask you to send me a link to alan's paper, so that i can put it on the (public) wiki that is being developed to track information?


    otherwise i have to page back through.... hundreds of posts to find out whom alan is, and what paper you're referring to. which i almost certainly will miss. and have to spend another hour searching for it.


    apologies wyttenberg!

  • Mills model includes two steps. The base currents do not cover the sphere uniformly. Only the folding with the seconds layer OCF gives a uniform distribution that conforms to the spherical harmonics.


    ok so, let me try to get this clear. the photon whizzes around in a circle, and (obviously) its EM field - its electrical current and its magnetic field - change as it does so. the old chesnut "right hand motor rule" says that the current goes out at right-angles to the direction of motion (and keeps going in a straight line round the sphere hence those circles), but, obviously, at any one point of the photon's travel, it's oscillating according to a sine wave, so the current is *different* at any one point on its path across the sphere, hence why what you call "base currents" which go out sideways - let's call them "base current great circles" - are *all different*, is that right?


    and, the "uniform distribution" thing is just a really nice mathematical coincidence where when you add up all those contributing "base current great circles", it just so happens that the MAGNITUDE - not the DIRECTION, the MAGNITUDE - of all those currents HAPPEN to sum to exactly the same amount at all points. does that sound right?

  • ok so, let me try to get this clear. the photon whizzes around in a circle, and (obviously) its EM field - its electrical current and its magnetic field - change as it does so.


    To "produce" a magnetic moment (sphere based!) you need a circular area and a net ring current. All particle models that contradict this fact are wrong. Thus if some model say "uniform current", then the average current parallel to the moment plane must be uniform (direction, magnitude) too.

    Things changes if you switch to a torus surface. There the current can be uniform in all directions!

  • To "produce" a magnetic moment (sphere based!) you need a circular area and a net ring current. All particle models that contradict this fact are wrong. Thus if some model say "uniform current", then the average current parallel to the moment plane must be uniform (direction, magnitude) too.

    Things changes if you switch to a torus surface. There the current can be uniform in all directions!

    The geometry for currents is not a sphere technically the north pole and the south pole is not included but are singular points So the geometry is not a sphere just a ring for each z of a current with constant magnitude. This creating the magnetic moment just fine.

    Mills creates the fields then by direct calculation and then used in the g factor calculation given quite good accuracy if you buy into the changes of reference systems.

  • The geometry for currents is not a sphere technically the north pole and the south pole is not included but are singular points So the geometry is not a sphere just a ring for each z of a current with constant magnitude. This creating the magnetic moment just fine.


    It depends on what you like to see. BECV Mills page 84 the real - ring like - surface currents or the far-field spherical harmonics generating currents p85 ... And all is just mathematics.