STEM: An Energy-Centric Model for Atomic Structure and the Nature of Electricity and Light

  • Cherepanov2020

    None of the approx. 4000 LENR Forum members is supporting your claims.

    Did that occur to you meanwhile?

    These are your problems, not mine ... On the other hand, you have so far stated this in the singular number ... And where are the other 3999 people? And more ... In order not to support SOMETHING, you need to argue your position - you have no arguments ... But what is there? There is only your personal arrogance ... But this has nothing to do with physics! If you are a "writer", then you should go to a literary site ... If you prefer to remain a physicist, then present your arguments that will show me and all the other forum participants that I am wrong ... There are no authorities in physics - in physics only nature has authority!

  • This work has some superficial similarities to that presented by N Lynn Bowen at ICCF23. See the linear model in the ICCF23 video http://ikkem.com/iccf23/MP4/3a-IN19.mp4 at about 5:30.

    I would like to convey my thought to you ... But intuitively I feel that what I think in my Russian head and in Russian, many of you perceive my thoughts translated into English not the way I would like ... Thus, the translation into English does not allow me to fully convey to you my idea, which I form with the help of my native language - "Russian language" ... But I try to do it with the best intentions ... I would like to return to report by Lynn Bowen ... Despite the fact that I have plenty of arguments to criticize this scientist, I nevertheless have to point out the following - a very important part of her talk concerns the interaction of a proton and a neutron ... to formulate this interaction and at least somehow simulate it ... Another thing is that its attempt, from my point of view, is clearly unsuccessful ... The reason is still the same - an attempt to use THAT that is not in nature - these are charges "+ "and" - "- see screenshot ...






    Another slide ... see screenshot below -



    I want to praise and scold her at the same time ... I praise her for paying attention to the magnetic moments ...




    But I cannot agree with the mathematical formalism that she used ... On careful analysis of her formulas, I see an unrealistic attempt to obtain the result of addition , as an example, two vectors, which are applied to the centers of mass of different particles ... But there is no such rule of addition! I will give an example - one vector of force is applied to a ball that lies somewhere on the asphalt in London, and another vector of force is applied to a ball that lies on the seat of your car ... Explain to me how you get the "addition of these two vectors" and how get the resulting vector? From my point of view, this cannot be done in any way! Lynn Bowen makes about the same mistake as Maxwell ... Take a close look and evaluate this formula ... But ... But nevertheless, some kind of summation occurs in nature ... What is the problem? And the problem is that we don't really understand (including myself) what exactly is summed up ... Here's a simple example for clarity ... An electron and a proton have a geometric shape, have a mass, and have their own motion in space according to its nature ... Kanarev, as an example, has his own version of this motion and his model of the geometric shape of the proton and electron - this is the rotation of the torus around the axis of the torus and this is the rotation of the torus body around the axis of the torus body ... in fact, it is so ... Let us assume that the size of the proton is such that Kanarev presented in his textbook ~ 10 ^ -15 meters, and the size of the electron in this case is ~ 10 ^ -12 meters ... We know from experiments the following - the size hydrogen atom ~ 10 ^ -9 meters. An electron acts on a proton, and a proton acts on an electron ... Draw the force vectors that symbolize these interactions and try to add them ... This is half the problem ... Kanarev and I consider the following - both the proton and the electron precess, i.e. Those same force vectors behave as follows - the end of the vector describes a circle ... Another half of the problem with this "half" - the rotation occurs at a tremendous speed ... What are you going to do? What mathematical formalism will you use to describe these physical actions and interactions? And now a question for you from the audience - "The size of a proton can be placed on the line of interaction of a proton and an electron 1 million times and then you will get the distance between the proton and the electron ... What is between them? What kind of medium is this? And how does this medium behave, if the proton and electron are constantly rotating and precessing? "

    I have a question - "Is it possible to apply the formula used by Lynn Bowen, with such a picture of physical processes?" I believe that this absolutely must not be done ... And while I do not have an answer - what should be done and what formula should be applied ... We need to think about this ... No need to rush ... And no need to fantasize the way I did it Lynn Bowen.

    You can draw all sorts of nonsense on paper ... You can then make a report, relying on these drawings ... But did Lynn Bowen get closer to the truth? No, she did not come close to the truth, since it relies on false judgments - "electric charge", charge "+" and charge "-", and relies on a formula that does not correspond to the nature of things ... I doubt it ...


  • I would like to convey my thought to you ... But intuitively I feel that what I think in my Russian head and in Russian, many of you perceive my thoughts translated into English not the way I would like ... Thus, the translation into English does not allow me to fully convey to you my idea, which I form with the help of my native language - "Russian language" ... But I try to do it with the best intentions .

    :thumbup:

  • But I cannot agree with the mathematical formalism that she used ... On careful analysis of her formulas, I see an unrealistic attempt to obtain the result of addition , as an example, two vectors, which are applied to the centers of mass of different particles

    Forgive my possible ignorance in the following comment:


    Bowen's equations you chose as an example seem to represent two vector fields (electric and magnetic) experienced or generated by a single particle, and are correctly summed by the dot product. These forces are not context-free as your counter-example suggests. Rather, they represent the environment of the particle based on what is experimentally known about behavior of matter in our universe. As with almost any theory, certain assumptions are included although unstated. For example, a dipole magnetic field diminishes by the cube of the distance from the source, or square of the distance if a magnetic monopole is proposed.


    Now in the case of your example of one electron and one proton, it seems to me that the forces between them can be correctly calculated by using the dot product of each of the field vectors, once the distance is known. I suspect that in your model, this approach does not apply, due to different assumptions on which you base your theory. If as you claim, Maxwell and his successors are wrong, then we will have to throw out most of what we think known, and start over from first principles. This seems to me a task that few if any of the 3999 rest of us are capable of achieving. The exception may be Wyttenbach, who might have a SO4 (six-space?) set of equations ready to go.

  • If as you claim, Maxwell and his successors are wrong, then we will have to throw out most of what we think known, and start over from first principles. This seems to me a task that few if any of the 3999 rest of us are capable of achieving. The exception may be Wyttenbach, who might have a SO4 (six-space?) set of equations ready to go.

    I want to support this proposal of yours and your reasoning ... It is this idea that I want to convey to you and to physicists in Russia - we will have to go through this path again ... I hope that we will cope ... But this is not so easy as it may seem - the results of many experiments should be revised ... This is a huge work ... But this is a rewarding work - it will bring us closer to the truth ... Physicists are not to blame for being taught false physics ... But at the same time physicists are to blame that they did not question Maxwell's correctness ... The physical community had a chance to uncover Maxwell's mistakes if they were very careful about the publication of the outstanding German physicist Karl Schreber ... But physicists did not give a damn about his warning, physicists ignored the fact that Schreber exposed Maxwell ... It is also significant that Schreber exposed Maxwell in the most trivial and most correct way - he did it by analyzing the dimensions ... You can independently trace the history of this issue ... My claims are primarily made against German physicists - Max Planck, Roentgen, Lenard, Heisenberg, Stark, Sommerfeld, Born, Weil, Wilhelm Wien, Gustav Hertz, Hans Geiger, Walter Gerlach, Walter Kaufmann, Alfred Lande, Paul Gerber ... physicists were obliged to pay attention to the article by Karl Schreber ... But they did not ... This is a fatal error of the physicists' data, which led physics to a dead end ...


    Dimensions of Electrical Quantities, Karl Schreber, 1899 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/rZpb/fzFv6ttNv


    Dimensions of Electrical Quantities, Karl Schreber, 1899 - https://docs.google.com/docume…ueQn-mTE/edit?usp=sharing

  • Forgive my possible ignorance in the following comment:


    Bowen's equations you chose as an example seem to represent two vector fields (electric and magnetic) experienced or generated by a single particle, and are correctly summed by the dot product.

    You wrote a phrase that contains mutually exclusive statements - "to represent two vector fields" and "are correctly summed by the dot product." What does the dot product have to do with it? Bowen's formulas indicate "vectors" and indicate "vector properties" - look at this carefully -



    You are making a mistake ...


    Bowen is also mistaken ... Explain to yourself how you are going to sum the vectors applied to the centers of mass of different particles ... Such summation is impossible ... This formula is complete nonsense!

  • What does the dot product have to do with it? Bowen's formulas indicate "vectors" and indicate "vector properties" - look at this carefully -

    The dot product of two vectors is the standard way of summing two vectors at a single point. The equation looks like the integral of the dot product over the combined vector space, yielding the combined magnetic field at each point in the space. I don't see the problem you assert.

  • The dot product of two vectors is the standard way of summing two vectors at a single point. The equation looks like the integral of the dot product over the combined vector space, yielding the combined magnetic field at each point in the space. I don't see the problem you assert.



    The problem ... Let's find points for mutual understanding ...




    First, I look at this formula and see the cross product, and in this formula I do not see the dot product .. Maybe this is the first reason for our not understanding each other? As I was taught, so I write on this site ... I was taught in Russia ... I see dashes on the symbols μ and B - in Russia this is a vector ... Therefore, I think that this is a cross product ... This is half the trouble ...


    Below I drew as an example vector μ1 of the electron No. 1 – е1, and vectors Bl2, Bl3 , Bl4 , Bl5 , Bl6 ... I also presented you with the formula given in expanded form ... I replaced the ⅀ symbol with the addition symbol "+" ...




    What do I want? I want you to show me how you will receive the resulting vector of vector product data (the rule for obtaining it is shown above in the screenshot from Wikipedia) and how you will then add the resulting vectors - this is what is in parentheses, and then how you will add the resulting results are vectors in parentheses to get the total.


    If you have your own version of understanding this formula, then please change my drawing as you understand it and present it to me ... Maybe then I will begin to understand you ...

  • Sorry if this is unrelated.

    Several years ago I followed a long rabbit hole of Planck Cheated or some such. Anyways after a year of bickering eventually much of the problem was solved by some posters that stuck it out and went through the claims systematically. It turned out to be the interpretation of mathematics as they wrote it 150 years ago vs how it is best written today, some notation thing, that was the main sticking point.

  • First, I look at this formula and see the cross product, and in this formula I do not see the dot product ..

    Yes, this is the key part of our disagreement. In the mathematical notation commonly used in the West, a cross product of two vectors (A, B) would be shown as A x B. The product is a vector but its scalar value will not correspond to the result of summing the two magnetic fields. For example A x A = 0
    "Cross product is a binary operation on two vectors in three-dimensional space. It results in a vector that is perpendicular to both vectors. The Vector product of two vectors, a and b, is denoted by a × b. Its resultant vector is perpendicular to a and b. Vector products are also called cross products. Cross product of two vectors will give the resultant a vector and calculated using the Right-hand Rule." [1]

    The dot product of two vectors is notated as A . B and is clearly used by Ms Bowen in her equation. The result is a scalar value, and while a reference angle between the original two vectors can be derived, the output of the dot product does not include any absolute directional information in the reference frame of the field sources.

    "..dot product is used for defining lengths (the length of a vector is the square root of the dot product of the vector by itself) and angles (the cosine of the angle of two vectors is the quotient of their dot product by the product of their lengths)" [2]


    So which of these is the correct approach depends on the context, as I proposed in my first posting. My understanding is that the equation is meant to show the strength of the magnetic force seen by a particle at a single arbitrary location. Thus the scalar quantity is found by the dot product. The two force vectors seen by the particle (from two external field sources) have a common origin at the particle location in the local frame of reference.


    The graphic you showed illustrates use of the cross product by decomposition of each of the input vectors to yield the desired full vector output. That also uses the local reference frame, with the two input vectors have a common origin. Having now seen this, I better understand your objection to the notation used by Ms Bowen. Thanks for the clarification and your patience.


    [1] https://byjus.com/maths/cross-product/

    [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_product