# BLP update

• Still using seam (a joint between two materials) when you should be using seem (having the appearance of ). English is a bitch, isn't it?

What about the momentum aspect of the energy equation?

If the universe can support only a maximum energy density wouldn't that imply that the regression back to the big bang must end at a finite size, not infinity? Not that that would affect my theory for the creation of dark matter, which effectively keeps the total energy constant, as the energy lost by the photons shows up in the mass of the dark matter. Hm, so would the momentum. A new angle!

• > Still using seam (a joint between two materials) when you should be using seem (having the appearance of ). English is a bitch, isn't it?

Old farts doesnt learn, sorry!

> What about the momentum aspect of the energy equation?

Mmenum is m*v = \integer m a \,dt = Int F \,dt so that should be included as I deduced F=ma

> If the universe can support only a maximum energy density wouldn't that imply that the regression back to the big bang

It sure would mean that Big Bang could not happen in a singelton.

• regression back to the big bang

Mills excludes a big bang. But's nice for religion and for religious physicists.

• the reduced mass is an interesting property and usually deduced in two particle systems. It's basically the harmonic mean m = 1/(1/m1+1/m2) = (m1 m2) / (m1+m2). By using the mass in QED we can improve the predictions of e.g. the ground state, but I am not satisfied by the usual interpretation that it is a probability field of a two particle system.

Here's another possible solution,

We can deduce from e.g. dimensional analysis that Energy density scales like 1/a, with size scaling like r .-> a r. Now if we hypothesise that energy density is at the limit for what space allows for the electron. Also assumed that the charge is located at a surface and hence the total energy scales like Ca, but mass scales then like m = Da, D=Cc^2. If assume that the effect of the interaction of the proton and the electron is such that we should be able to remove the "density" of the proton from that of the electron as the charge is different (the base level is lowered), we see that we can increase the mass part of the energy density of the electron by that of the proton e.g.

C/a = C/a_e + C/a_p

Then

a = 1/(1/a_e + 1/a_p) = a_e a_p / (a_e + a_p)

Therefore

m = Da = Da_e a_p / (a_e + a_p) = D a_e D a_p / (D a_e + D a_p) = m_e m_p / (m_e + m_e)

Sure, this is a back of the napkin calculations, but it seem to me to be a more clear motivation than what we have in QM

• the reduced mass is an interesting peoperty and usually deduced in two particle systems. It's basically the armonic mean m = 1/(1/m1+1/m2) = (m1 m2) / (m1+m2).

Mills did show that the added magnetic force is exactly the same! Then he got stuck...

The electron proton bond is given by joining the EM waves, what leads to a tiny added topological charge as the wave topology is SO(4) - what means we have two rotation centers - classically front/back seen from the flux manifold.

• Mills did show that the added magnetic force is exactly the same! Then he got stuck...

The electron proton bond is given by joining the EM waves, what leads to a tiny added topological charge as the wave topology is SO(4) - what means we have two rotation centers - classically front/back seen from the flux manifold.

> Mills did show that the added magnetic force is exactly the same! Then he got stuck...

I was not satisfied with his calculation, I agree with this sentence. Also The building block I use is basically a two rotation center object andall interactions are between those if we assume that anly paralell streams interact. This means that it is possible to do a symmetrisation e.g. turn the loop around in all directions and overlay it and hence create the spherical symmetry that is needed for the logic in the previous post to be valid. But still one understands a lot of things from a just the two rotation centre object only.

• New paper Version 6

Includes the limiting argument for why one assumes no self interaction of the streams, when we allow the velocity of the charge stream to go to the speed of light. I also improved the scaling argument to use a more general approach as well that is based on dimensional analysis and finally the argument of reduced mass is refined and put into the dress of Latex wonderful typesetting of math.

• Tonighits insight are the following.

Consider that we fill up the space with essentially positive charge density and reach an energy density \rho_0 then a positive charge would have the gap \rho_max - \rho_0 and the negative charge has the

gap $\rho_max + \rho_0$

gap \rho = C/a

E= aC = m c²

The size of the proton a_p ~ r_p => m_p c² ~ r_p C => we can estimate C as m_p c² / r_p

Also,

m_e c² ~ r_e C ~ r_e m_p c²/ r_p => r_e ~ (m_e/ m_p) r_p

Note with numers this means that r_e ~0.5 attometer and the upperlimit as of 2022 acording to ChatGPT4 is around 1 atto meter interesting this is also the limit

due to the uncertaty principle, how convinient

\rho_max - \rho_0 = C/a_p ~C/r_p = m_p c²/ r_p² = x

\rho_max + \rho_0 = C/a_e ~C/r_e = m_p c²/r_p /((m_e/m_p)r_p) = m_p/ m_e m_p c² / r_p² = m_p/m_e x = yx

\rho_max = x(y+1)/2

\rho_0 = x(y-1)/2

with numbers we get

x = 2.13 e+20

y = 1836.15

rho_max/\rho_0 ~ (1836.15+1)/(1836.15-1) = 1.001

So in this models assumption we see that there is only 0.1% difference between \rho_max and \rho_0

• another possibility are to view electron as holes and then the I guess \rho_0 should be the limit in stead of \rho_0 + \rho_max

• quarks and it's geometrical interpretation

A new article that may be hard for the non initiated and I will blog in plain English maybe tomorrow. But I do connect QED with electromagnetic's and we see how

QED really can be interpreted basically as a confined electromagnetic system where we assume that only parallel currents interact and as they also is assumed

to moving at the speed of light.

• Includes the limiting argument for why one assumes no self interaction of the streams, when we allow the velocity of the charge stream to go to the speed of light.

On of my key insights in physics was the moment I checked that the symmetry of charge and magnetic moment works 180o the opposite way! Charge is macroscopically always bound to a carrier hence can never reach light speed.

But EM flux always is at light speed by definition. So the charge seen from the reference frame of the proton/electron is stationary!!!!!!!

This also explains why the rule E(E) = E(B) is a silly fantasy. There is only a tiny potential energy associated with charge e.g. 1183eV for the electron. The rest is EM flux energy = mass.

• On of my key insights in physics was the moment I checked that the symmetry of charge and magnetic moment works 180o the opposite way! Charge is macroscopically always bound to a carrier hence can never reach light speed.

But EM flux always is at light speed by definition. So the charge seen from the reference frame of the proton/electron is stationary!!!!!!!

This also explains why the rule E(E) = E(B) is a silly fantasy. There is only a tiny potential energy associated with charge e.g. 1183eV for the electron. The rest is EM flux energy = mass.

> Charge is macroscopically always bound to a carrier hence can never reach light speed

That's usually what one assumes, but consider studying a sequence of classical charges, mass is then

m(n, v) = m_0(n)\gamma(v_n)

Let v_n = c-1/n

Then for large n,

gamma(n) = 1/\sqrt(1-(v_n / c)²) = 1/\sqrt(1-((c-1/n)/c)²) = 1/\sqrt(1-(1-1/nc)²) ~ 1/\sqrt(1- (1-/2n)) ~ \sqrt[2cn}

So if you let m_0(n) = 1/n , then you will see that the end charge has zero mass and move at the speed of light. So we are studying objects that are not considered classical. We simply assumes ontop of the usual model we added the objects that you get from taking the limit, e.g. and whenever we analyse things stringently you need to do the limit and see how it reacts.

Now do the same analysis you get a current at the speed of light. Move to the reference system of the particles, you get only electrostatic interaction (if paralellel and equally directed), move to the reference system of the lab, and you end up with only magnetic interaction, it's a dual phenomena.

Edited once, last by stefan ().

• 1/\sqrt(1-(1-1/nc)²) ~ 1/\sqrt(1- (1-/2n)) ~ \sqrt[2cn}

No its 1/(1/nc) --> infinite! What we know since ever...

• No its 1/(1/nc) --> infinite! What we know since ever...

Yes of cause it goes to inifinity, but you multiply with a rest mass that goes quicker to zero.

• Yes of cause it goes to inifinity, but you multiply with a rest mass that goes quicker to zero.

Of course not. Why should a restmass decrease ??? The smallest charge carrier is the electron and nobody so far could see a slim electron....

• It's a construction where you define an a sequence of objects that is considered ordinary objects and then find extension to the current model by treating limiting objects as a new extension to the old model. This can be very fruitful as many of the properties you have in the current theory remains also for the limiting object. Now we can turn things around and build up what we see in our world with these limiting objects as a building block. Turns out that those building blocks has the property that energy density seem Lorenz invariant which is a very attractive feature as it allows us to define a model that has the right relativistic properties and also gives a natural argument for why we have the particles we have. you can read more at,

Blog post

• Turns out that those building blocks has the property that energy density seem Lorenz invariant which is a very attractive feature as it allows us to define a model that has the right relativistic properties and also gives a natural argument for why we have the particles we have.

SO(4) physics modelling exactly shows that the density of flux (=mass) increases by a logarithmic factor depending on the amount of parallel flux. These calculations reveal the real structure of mass. Of course the strong force is not constant and increases by the same factor. Lorenz invariance plays no role in relativistic system like mass.

As said the old view is totally outdated. I can even show the calculation for the first gamma levels of 6-Li...Or explain why 4-He has no gammas at all.

If you try to improve old garbage you only waste your live time.

The classic formulas can only be used for macroscopic physics where these work to some degree.

• I beg to differ, if you consider a helix that are dense you would also get a logarithm factor as you will have parallel paths and due to electrical interaction a logarithm show up in how densely packed it is, it really comes from the energy of to straight lines that are parallel. Also note that in a helix, the speed of the current is different than the speed of light although it moves at c in the helix. This is an old theory and a lot of researchers have though along those lines (pun intended)

• Also note that in a helix, the speed of the current is different than the speed of light although it moves at c in the helix.

Experiments did show information transport at >64 c by spin currents. Or more likely bound flux acts immediately over all distances as entangled photons could prove.

So some assumptions of classic physics are mot or nonsensical ...

Only mass = energy transfer is bound by c. (in macroscopic world only) ... Really ??

"black holes" (are never black..) show matter jets with > 30c .... Einstein will turn upside down in his tomb as this is from real world measurement and not a mathematician wet dream...

• I am not sure how relevant this is, but the speed of magnetic flux in metals is very finite.

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!