Stefan.
"https://math.stackexchange.com…re-with-uniform-geodesics"
Nice try . Two down votes already...???? the sixth, anti-Millsian force. see how it goes.
I upvoted but my votes don't count. Cheers
Stefan.
"https://math.stackexchange.com…re-with-uniform-geodesics"
Nice try . Two down votes already...???? the sixth, anti-Millsian force. see how it goes.
I upvoted but my votes don't count. Cheers
Hi, I'm new to the forum but have been watching for a while and trying to delve into GUTCP lately so I'll just jump in with both feet. I think a big issue is best summed up by:
velocity means that it is correct to consider flows that crosses without interaction. Quite a mystery if you ask me.
How can the great circle have a mass that sums to the mass of the electron?
It's hard to accept 2 loops of mass crashing into each other and charges repulsing each other being possible and at the same time not flying apart. One thing that I think might be key is that, in the theory, mass is more of an emergent phenomenon as a result of electromagnetic energy being trapped in the closed geometry of the 2D shell. He calls the orbitsphere a discontinuity in spacetime and that during particle production spacetime curves and contracts in conjunction with the event. The total energy of the particle allows the derivation of mass in the lab frame. When describing the actual current loops he is careful to use the words charge\mass. Whether this is correct or not is another story but allowing that assumption and carrying on seems to bring some interesting results
I have though about this question some more, It is nicely summarized in a math stack exchange question, please upvote it if you find it interesting so that it have a better chance of getting answered. Or if you are a wizard answer it yourself.
And Stefan thanks for posting that question, I wish I could answer it but I can't. I would imagine that there would be many solutions for the functions. I think Mills adds in further boundary conditions on the precessing secondary axis?
You may find that it is difficult but that doesn't imply that it is not true, just that you don't understand that kind of modelling and there is plenty of such models in practical use such as electromagnetism, fluid dynamics, etc.
It's not that I can't understand it; I just find it illogical and full of question-begging. I do believe that Mills is onto something. I think he has reconfigured and discovered some mathematical formula that work and can be very useful. But I don't think the underlying model is correct. QM has allowed physicists to make many highly accurate predictions. The same logic applies: how could they have made those predictions if the underlying model was wrong? How could that happen by chance? Well, it's because their equations are finely tuned to fit experimental results, and so they are often good at prediction (though in many cases disastrously off the mark). As far as I can tell, Mills has rejiggered (some of) the equations to squeeze more accuracy out of them. It does not follow that his theory is correct. And as far as I can tell, his theory is lacking any real mechanics but full of declaration by fiat and question-begging.
Here are some examples from Millsian.com:
"However, unlike a point-charge, an extended distribution of charge may, under certain conditions, accelerate without radiating. Millsian founder Dr. Randell Mills used this nonradiation condition to solve the electron as a spherical shell of charge centered on the nucleus. This is called the orbitsphere, and is analogous to a soap bubble."
And here I thought electrons were particles with a radius and so forth. But apparently in Mills's classical derivation, they are a spherical membrane when they are "orbiting" a nucleus. Except the electron does not orbit, it simply exists as a spherical membrane like a soap bubble, which has a momentum and is made up of infinitesimally small masses. And what happens to free electrons?
Well that's easy: Mills takes the z-projection of the bound orbitsphere to arrive at the free electron, which is a flat plane disc of circular current loops.
How, pray tell, does the orbitsphere transform itself into this flat plane free electron, and vice versa?
Mills is doing the same thing that QM and QED and QCD theorists have done: he comes up with a neat mathematical tricks by assigning the parameters of his equations to non-mechanical and non-physical entities without any attempt to understand or describe or theorize the underlying mechanics. Like QM, he has continued to mistake math for physics.
Stefan.
"https://math.stackexchange.com…re-with-uniform-geodesics"
Nice try . Two down votes already...???? the sixth, anti-Millsian force. see how it goes.
I upvoted but my votes don't count. Cheers
The two downvotes was for an earlier version which was not all that greatly formulated, I have 90 viewres and the last 70 of them did at least not dwonvote or couldn't upvote.
Display MoreHi, I'm new to the forum but have been watching for a while and trying to delve into GUTCP lately so I'll just jump in with both feet. I think a big issue is best summed up by:
It's hard to accept 2 loops of mass crashing into each other and charges repulsing each other being possible and at the same time not flying apart. One thing that I think might be key is that, in the theory, mass is more of an emergent phenomenon as a result of electromagnetic energy being trapped in the closed geometry of the 2D shell. He calls the orbitsphere a discontinuity in spacetime and that during particle production spacetime curves and contracts in conjunction with the event. The total energy of the particle allows the derivation of mass in the lab frame. When describing the actual current loops he is careful to use the words charge\mass. Whether this is correct or not is another story but allowing that assumption and carrying on seems to bring some interesting results
And Stefan thanks for posting that question, I wish I could answer it but I can't. I would imagine that there would be many solutions for the functions. I think Mills adds in further boundary conditions on the precessing secondary axis?
Yes there are infinitely many versions of an orbitsphere if you consider flipping loops of the presented one. Doing that I'm sure you can get all the values of the total angular momentum from -hbar/2 to hbar/2. But The chosen solution is optimal and it feels natural that in the natural solution the loops "align". But these variants are the simple variants. What about a completely different setup of great circles. I actually think that it is a great question, and an important one. It is mathematically challenging and fun, and for sure deserves some upvotes. I will try to visit my old math institution soon, I'll bring this question up to the table and see if someone get hooked.
Another Yes: Is the sub elements really a mass and a charge point. If we consider that there is a Continental shift in the fabric of space due to for example great stresses one could argue that for the resulting math should introduce a source term in the electromagnetic equations to correct for this shift. The physics governing this interface formation is unknown in detail and maybe only a partial residual can be measured and seen in these source fields. It is not normal mass, normal charge and normal velocities. It just happens to follow the natural laws in suitable enough way so that the global result of it is indeed Newtonian physics etc in the end. So I think that it is wrong to see it as a set of point charges e.g. one need to be open minded it should follow the usual laws far enough to fit with what we know already and modulo that it could do weird things.
one need to be open minded it should follow the usual laws far enough to fit with what we know already and modulo that it could do weird things.
I agree that a theory that is put forward as being comprehensive (e.g., as a replacement of quantum mechanics) should fit what we already know. One thing we already know about is electron capture, where a proton in the nucleus changes into a neutron, and an orbital electron disappears. The existing understanding of electron capture is that three-dimensional inner shell electron orbitals intersect with the nuclear volume enough to allow the weak interaction to operate over the extremely short distances over which it works. An explanation in which electron orbitals are 3D probability distributions has little trouble here. An explanation in which the electron orbitals are 2D shells that rarely if ever intersect with the nuclear volume is highly problematic. Electron capture is made more mysterious, not less, in Mills's model. Mills's model does not fit what we already know in this instance, unless we are also to abandon our understanding of how the weak interaction works.
I have 90 viewres and the last 70 of them did at least not dwonvote or couldn't upvote.
Knowing what I know about the various StackExchange sites, I'm going to offer the following about the question you raised:
If your question is getting at something interesting, I suggest you edit it into something much more compact, and that you drop the reference to Mills at the end.
I think you have a point. On the other hand There are electrical fields that communicates between the electron and the nucleus, we know of resonant coupling that is a em feature that is interesting and in a way a little spooky.
Check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonant_inductive_coupling
In mills theory everything centers around orbit spheres and those are ensables of loops, which could perhaps couple in a suitable way to suck in the electron to the core.
The weak interaction is quite invisible to the electromagnetic interaction, and vise versa. The electron and the proton participate in electron capture because the electron is a lepton. No electrical fields are involved. (So far as we know.)
The weak interaction does not work over long distances. Its range is 0.1 percent of the diameter of a proton. The electron orbital must overlap with the proton for the weak interaction to operate.
Knowing what I know about the various StackExchange sites, I'm going to offer the following about the question you raised:
- The setup was too long. You generally need to get to the point pretty quickly and not introduce extraneous details or discussion.
- People judged the question to be ill-conceived, and possibly word salad. They'll get this impression if they run into one questionable assumption after another without getting a sense that the author knows the assumptions are questionable.
- People do not generally vote a question down much more than -2 or so if the question seems to be a sincere one. So there could be people who would like to further downvote your question who are simply holding back.
- You brought in Mills at the end, which will confirm for anyone who was wondering that the question does in fact deal with a fringe topic.
If your question is getting at something interesting, I suggest you edit it into something much more compact, and that you drop the reference to Mills at the end.
I had a more to the point setup argument previously and it didn't contain all the details to setup the problem correctly. It was then I got the downvotes. Therefore I added details to the definitions of the problem to make it mathematically clear.
I agree that I can reformulate it, but it will not be shorter. Perhaps I could drop the comment regarding continum. So, shall I remove facts about the setup make the assumption more vague? After the definition there is a theorem that I ask if
it is true.
Then I add things that motivates the theorem. And although Mills are questionable unfourtunately I will not drop his reference because I tend to not take credit for others work and I non cowardly state where the ideas come from.
I add the warnings to the reference so I'm not missleading in any way readers.
fringe! are you crazy? this is mathematics, logic. It is all coherrent logic either it contains errors or it is correct, there is no room for fringeness. Perhaps non mathematicians and ignorants having hard time and react to that Mills is fringe. he is by thge way fringe because it is difficult to follow his work, it is vague. So what error do I do in my formulation that makes people think that it is mathematically and logically fringe. If there is something that is vague or wrong I would of cause correct it. As I see it it is a well defined and clearly stated problem of mathematical logic. It could do with a better reformulation though, but that's just english.
I find this question a very intelligent and deep critique of high standards of Mills "fringe" work. You see he chooses one constellation that makes his system fit like a clockwork, but he doesn't motivate why. Now with my analysis you can say hey he has tuned the data to fit the figures. But as a good akademic I also point to solutions for Mills to counter. in the end he can perhaps counter with: yes I choose a system of loops, but it's a natural system of loops that e.g. minimizes the information content of the setup and should ackording to the law of thermodynamics be the natural choice. And whoosh there is science and fringe is just a word of the ignorant.
The weak interaction is quite invisible to the electromagnetic interaction, and vise versa. The electron and the proton participate in electron capture because the electron is a lepton. No electrical fields are involved. (So far as we know.)
The weak interaction does not work over long distances. Its range is 0.1 percent of the diameter of a proton. The electron orbital must overlap with the proton for the weak interaction to operate.
The dirac fields couples with electromagnets, I think you need to give me some background on why you don't think that a resonant coupling can't ork. What I mean with this is just as with resonant couplings you see nada when there is no resonanse e.g. it is only for special setups of the EM fields that you will get a measurable effect so it is quite possible that we missed it. Allso Mills model is an attractive idea due to it's simplicity, everything is electromagnetic theory and also the weak forces and strong forces are actually a special electromagnetic phenomena. Not a normal one usually thugh, there are some extream extensions done to Maxwells equations e.g. generalizing it to source termns that are distributions e.g. a generalisation of functions.
joshg"Mills takes the z-projection of the bound orbitsphere to arrive at the free electron"
As far as I can work out from 12 pgs 1715 to 1727 "Appendix iV of GUTCP"
Mills uses the same method for calculating
the free electron that he does for the orbitsphere
He does not just take the z-projection to get to the free electron
joshg" mistake math for physics"
Electrodynamics necessitates a heavily mathematical approach ever since Maxwell.
Simplify, Simpilfy, Simplify is poetic rhetoric.
fringe! are you crazy? this is mathematics, logic.
Perhaps I should reverse this question and ask whether you're crazy? No, I'm not crazy. Mills is fringe. You should accept this fact right now, before going to a StackExchange site again and predictably getting your question downvoted. The mathematics may not be fringe, but your interest in the mathematics is connected to someone who is fringe, and many people will lose interest at this point who could have otherwise provided useful commentary on the mathematics. Here we're talking about the most effective strategy in getting your question addressed, and not the question itself. It is ineffective to bring in a disreputable source.
Whether someone is fringe is only indirectly related to whether they're correct or incorrect. In this case, it seems that Mills is both fringe and incorrect in suggesting that his system can supplant quantum mechanics.
he is by thge way fringe because it is difficult to follow his work, it is vague.
I would put it differently. It is hard to follow several volumes of word salad, because the individual details are disjoint and do not provide an actual mathematical argument.
The quesr
Perhaps I should reverse this question and ask whether you're crazy? No, I'm not crazy. Mills is fringe. You should accept this fact right now, before going to a StackExchange site again and predictably getting your question downvoted. The mathematics may not be fringe, but your interest in the mathematics is connected to someone who is fringe, and many people will lose interest at this point who could have otherwise provided useful commentary on the mathematics. Here we're talking about the most effective strategy in getting your question addressed, and not the question itself. It is ineffective to bring in a disreputable source.
Whether someone is fringe is only indirectly related to whether they're correct. In this case, it seems that Mills is both fringe and incorrect in suggesting that his system can supplant quantum mechanics
I gave all the information that anyone objective and good at math can see the value of it, see that it is a well defined problem, a problem that an expert would love to answer, is fun and entertaining, is challanging and has a depth. The downvoting was because I left out details and they couldn't see if the setup was well defined or not. That Mills is challanging QM is not an issue here, and even for a physists he must admit that it is a cool and interesting coincidence that such a natural and physical well balanced model indeed give the correct figures. The thing is that Mills could still be wrong in large and QM can still be right, but this isolated fact seam to have physical weight in some way and should be a known fact to the community. All else is fringe and the opposite of knowledge and good akademic behavior.
All else is fringe and the opposite of knowledge and good akademic behavior.
You are talking about what should be true. I am talking about is true, right now. Do you want to get your question answered? If so, you should make it more compact and conceal the allusions to Mills's theory. Or maybe I'm wrong, and your analysis that it was simply because you needed to provide more detail is correct. I have already mentioned another possibility for why the question hasn't been further downvoted: that people see that it is already at -2 points, and they might feel sorry for you since you seem sincere. Perhaps I'm incorrect in thinking this might be the case.
I would put it differently. It is hard to follow several volumes of word salad, because the individual details are disjoint and do not provide an actual mathematical argument.
well I say vague meaning that there are things I can't follow to be polite. But i do recognize that some stuff he claim seams to be correct, but his deduction is over complicated and wrong. But still he can be correct.
A faulty proof of a theorem does not prove that the theorem is wrong, just that we don't know and a proof of it's incorrectness is needed to conclude. This is in essens the vagness and although Mills sometimes put up a bad proof,
people on the other side put up bad counter proof. As an example it is not acknowledged that Mills charge distribution lead to a non radiating conition but it is commonly said whithout a correct proof that he is wrong
that they do indeed radiate. Mills have two proofs of it and one of them is wrong. I did my own proof of it and it is clear that those distributions indeed does not radiate and also have all the potential needed to produce
a system we call atoms. I would actually say that I believe both sides on this story are fringe. I have gotten a lot of laughs ploughing through bad and faulty arguments. This is fringe yes, but I do enjoy it and sometimes
from fringness items of pure gold can be found, The stack exchange question is a good example of that.
Allso Mills model is an attractive idea due to it's simplicity, everything is electromagnetic theory and also the weak forces and strong forces are actually a special electromagnetic phenomena.
I did not realize that Mills sets aside both the strong and the weak interactions. Perhaps you've misunderstood his claims in this connection? If this is an accurate representation, his task is even bigger than I had previously thought. He and his followers must now recast a significant portion of experimental conclusions in light of his framework, such as the breakdown of the Rutherford scattering formula for the scatterings of alpha particles off of heavy nuclei. At low energies, the formula is accurate. For an alpha particle scattering off of lead, at ~ 25 MeV the scattering angle starts to depart significantly from the Rutherford prediction as a result of the nuclear interaction. There are probably tens of thousands other such experimental phenomena that will also need to be examined anew if we're to set aside the nuclear and weak interactions and attempt to explain them as being derivative of the electromagnetic force.
Another example: if the electromagnetic force is infinite in range, and the weak interaction is derivative, why does the weak interaction work at only 0.1 percent of the diameter of a proton?
I have 90 viewres and the last 70 of them did at least not dwonvote or couldn't upvote.
Looks understandable to me.
You don't have all your hens at home.
Suck it and see.
If no response in a week. Reformat and post again.
Forums in these days of short attention spans are unpredictable.
You are talking about what should be true. I am talking about is true, right now. Do you want to get your question answered? If so, you should make it more compact and conceal the allusions to Mills's theory. Or maybe I'm wrong, and your analysis that it was simply because you needed to provide more detail is correct. I have already mentioned another possibility for why the question hasn't been further downvoted: that people see that it is already at -2 points, and they might feel sorry for you since you seem sincere. Perhaps I'm incorrect in thinking this might be the case.
Don't you listen to what I'm saying. It was much more compact before and it was then I got the down voting, the voters wanted me to be more stringent. I'm sorry to say but you are not a matematician and weak at it. That's clear from our previous discussion
So I don't take your advice on this matter due to this. When it comes to me I can point to a piece of masterwork I did around in the 90-ies:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S0304414900001009
Actually if the site is run by morons and they refuse to upvote it it's not my buisness. Then I know that they are a bunch of clowns or that there is a conspiarcy or such. I don't care I've done whats objectively demanded of me as a good citizen. But I will of cause skip this path and have a chat with my former superviser and see if they can find some information.