"Physchemistry of the microworld" which was opened for us by the Russian physicist Kanarev F.M., 1993-2016

  • My task on this site is for each of you to accustom yourself to the idea that any of us can be wrong, that the great physicists from whom we studied physics were also wrong ... And today I have prepared for you translation of a chapter from the textbook by FM Kanarev, which, as it seems to me, should very much please you all. You can download or read here -

    47 - Chapter 2. Photon, Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich, Russia, 2010 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5Duh/3EpDAGkMb

    47 - Chapter 2. Photon, Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich, Russia, 2010 - https://drive.google.com/file/…dvT7LPPp/view?usp=sharing


    Yes, you and I are not easy ... Languages you and I are different ... The meanings in the phrases are different when the GUGL translates from Russian into English and when you translate from Japanese into English, and then I translate from English through the GUGL into Russian .. But nevertheless, we need to understand each other ... You wrote - "and show the perfect coulomb repulsive force shielding." ... Personally, I just cannot accept this as a "physical process"! Why is that ? And because for me since 2018 there is no concept in physics such as the "Coulomb barrier" - there is no such barrier in nature ... But what is instead of this barrier? And there is a barrier of "secondary magnetic field" and in my model of the hydrogen atom I showed where this barrier is formed -


    lenr-forum.com/attachment/15083/

  • Cherepanov2020

    Changed the title of the thread from “Russian physicist Kanarev F.M.” to “"Physchemistry of the microworld" which was opened for us by the Russian physicist Kanarev F.M., 1993-2016”.
  • The developed physical model of a photon received its first confirmation in 2009 ... That year there was a tragic accident at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station, which killed 75 people ... In essence, for physicists, this accident became a unique physical experiment, in which it loudly declared itself new physics - "physical chemistry of the microworld", which, since 1993, was promoted by Philip Mikhailovich Kanarev ... In this experiment - an accident at the SSG, the obvious role of such physical processes as cavitation and photon pressure was manifested ... Continued here -


    The developed physical model of a photon received its first confirmation in 2009, 2016 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2ZdF/2fhq9ccmT



    The developed physical model of a photon received its first confirmation in 2009, 2016 – https://drive.google.com/file/…E7HJJ7ON/view?usp=sharing

  • About the pressure of photons ... What is behind the word "pressure" in physics? And there is a physical force ... What happens - a photon with force presses on "something" ... Exactly! And these are electrons, the size of which is 5 orders of magnitude smaller than the size of a photon ... And how is the force generated by a photon? Kanarev explained it to us like this -


  • This excerpt is taken from a 2016 textbook ... If you compare the formulas with the book from 2003, you will undoubtedly find a difference ... This is how physics develops ... This is normal ... It is not normal that this is not taught in our universities.

  • My task on this site is for each of you to accustom yourself to the idea that any of us can be wrong, that the great physicists from whom we studied physics were also wrong

    May I respectfully ask if it might be possible that you are wrong about things like Coulombs Law being wrong, etc? And may I ask why communications like this, are so disrespectful of everyone else? Is this considered an effective style of teaching?

  • accustom yourself to the idea that any of us can be wrong, that the great physicists from whom we studied physics were also wrong

    I quite like Kanarev's electron torus..bottom left of the six picture set.

    http://redshift.vif.com/Journa…01/V07NO3PDF/V07N3kan.PDF

    but there are quite a few of these tori often having a radius of the order of the Compton radius.


    I think Wyttenbach's 4d torus is the newest.. just pipping Oliver de Costa's helical coil

    at the post(middle bottom)

    Wlliamson's model is a rather old trapped photon and not in colour..

    and then there is the Millsian orbitsphere


    All physics models are wrong but definitely Bohr's planetary model is the wrongest.

    Sorting out which of the other models is least wrong

    involves serious reading and calculation..rather than pictorial narrative


    2-2310929x2.png

  • Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    May I respectfully ask if it might be possible that you are wrong about things like Coulombs Law being wrong, etc? And may I ask why communications like this, are so disrespectful of everyone else? Is this considered an effective style of teaching?

    My task is to acquaint you with my position and with my investigation of the legacy that Charles Coulomb left us, and the investigation of how the followers of Coulomb interpreted his teachings ... Unfortunately, I would have to conclude that the teachings of Charles Coulomb were perverted by his followers and the first on this list is Maxwell ... But what's interesting? And the interesting thing is that long before me - namely, in 1899, the German physicist Schreber made the same conclusion ... What is left for you to do? Check me and study the original works of Charles Coulomb, familiarize yourself with the work of Schreber and re-read a modern textbook on physics, that you could understand that I was right or wrong ...

    Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2ZuE/6EhstsLjG

    Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 - https://drive.google.com/file/…GK-6KBIZ/view?usp=sharing

  • I would like to draw your attention to the following physical phenomenon - if you place your experimental setup in a vacuum chamber and are going to test it by evacuating air and creating a vacuum, then you should bear in mind that it may happen that you evacuate air molecules, but you cannot - under certain conditions, to pump out clusters of free electrons ... How does this happen? Free electrons pass through the molecular structure like a small fish through a fishing net with a large mesh ...

  • Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    I do not know on what list we should place you... Maxwell died "long" before Born even was born...


    Let me ask you - "Didn't Born and Schrödinger use the concept of" charge "in their physics? The very" charge "which, thanks to Maxwell, was forcibly found on both the proton and the electron ...

    Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia - "In 1926, after Erwin Schrödinger created the formalism of wave mechanics, the problem of physical interpretation of this theory arose. Schrödinger's initial interpretation of the wave function as characteristics of the spatial distribution of Such packets were supposed to blur over time, which, in particular, contradicted the results of experiments on particle scattering.Similar experiments carried out at that time in Göttingen by James This idea first appeared in a small note written in June 1926. In a second, detailed article, "Quantum Mechanics of Collision Processes" (Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge, obtained by Zeitschrift für Physik on July 21, 1926), a method for solving the collision problem was presented a free particle with an atom, later called the "Born approximation". The essence of this approach was to consider the problem in the first order of the perturbation theory, which made it possible to obtain an expression for the wave function of a scattered particle in the form of a dependence on the scattering angle. According to Born, the corpuscular interpretation of this formula was possible only if we admit the interpretation of the square of the wave function as a measure of the probability of particle scattering in a given direction [24]. Summing up, the scientist wrote: "The motion of particles follows the laws of probability, but the probability itself propagates in accordance with the law of causality" [25]. "


    I disagree with Born ... Particle motion obeys magnetic fields and magnetic interactions ... The other side of the coin ... Physicists were mistaken in thinking that there are either orbitals for an electron or a cloud of the probability of finding an electron around the nucleus ... Why did they follow these delusions? And because they used an erroneous message - "positively charged nucleus" and "negative charge of electrons", and this is nothing in nature ... Therefore, there is no need to dwell on the probability of the location of an electron in the space of an atomic nucleus ... The electron interacts linearly with its magnetic field with the magnetic field of its proton, which "sits" in the cell of the atomic nucleus ... Is that clear?

  • Here is another excerpt from selected works by Erwin Schrödinger -



    What should be sure to disturb and disturb your inquisitive mind in these formulas? Think ... Erwin Schrödinger wrote these lines in 1926 - this happened long before the electron's own magnetic moment was discovered in 1947 ... And many physicists then realized for themselves that an electron is a rotating structure ... And what does this mean? This means that the electron has a rotational motion around its own axis and for this reason has "the energy of rotational motion around its own axis" !!!

    But in the Schrödinger's formula this "energy of rotation" is not represented! And which one is presented? And the energy of rotation around the nucleus of an atom is represented ... But this is not in nature - the electron does not rotate in orbitals around the nucleus of the atom - the electron interacts with the proton of the nucleus linearly ... Both Schrödinger and Born, a follower of Schrödinger, these delusions are forgivable ... But, you must agree that until now nothing has changed in this physics since 1926 ... These delusions are not forgivable to modern physicists!

    Here is the English version of Wikipedia - nothing has changed since 1926 -

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation

    Thus, Schrödinger was not describing the real world, but he did not understand this ...

    On the other hand ... Schrödinger died in 1961 ... Pauli died in December 1958 ... Born died in 1970 ... Niels Bohr died in 1962 ...

    Ask yourself - “Why didn't these physicists change their views and change our favorite physics? Why didn't these physicists admit their delusions? "

    Is it because they are all representatives of the "divine people" and they craved vanity?

    They all lacked the courage to admit their mistakes and admit their mistakes!

  • interesting point of view.

    using zero as a state of motion like a solid piece of steel vs a steel plate attached to an aluminum plate having motion between them but only at the exposed surfaces of each other. like motion of the core under the magma scraping away the carbon exposing previously insulated bla bla bla..

  • "Didn't Born and Schrödinger use the concept of" charge "in their physics?

    Most of the 18C..19C used charge. Ampere.. etc... then there is Faraday..


    2.3. 1 Oxygen flow rate · In addition, the Faraday constant (F) is defined as the overall charge of one mole of elemental charge. By dividing it by time (J = dQ/dt)


    Maybe the blacksmith's son can be charged with the original charge sin?


    but then he invented magnetic flux... maybe he is absolved from sin?

    in the charge conspiracy

    in science history reconstuctivism.. maybe Trotsky is to blame for charge revisionism...