Posts by stefan

I wanted to understand the photon acording to Mills. A trapped photon could be written as

j_0(sqrt(x*x + y*y + z*z)w/c)*exp(i w t), radious less then the first zero of the spherical bessel function

Lets take this trapped photon and and move it v in the x direction. Then the Lorenz transformation gives

x' = gamma (x - v t)
t' = gamma(t - v x / c^2)
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Plug it in and consider the equation around x = x0/gamma + vt e.g. look how it behaves around the moving center

j_0(sqrt(x0^2+y^2+z^2) * w / c) * exp(i w gamma (t - v (x0 + v t) / c^2)
<=> j_0(sqrt(x0^2+y^2+z^2) * w / c) * exp(i w gamma t ( 1 - v^2/c^2) - v x0 / c^2))
<=> j_0(sqrt(x0^2+y^2+z^2) * w / c) * exp(i w t - i w v x0 / c^2))

v -> c
j_0(sqrt(x0^2+y^2+z^2) * w / c) * exp(i w t - i w x0 / c))

Maybe this is what Mills mean is a photon. What actually have is a flat disk like distribution, I wondering if this is a generalized solution
of the EM equations note that the interior for each v solves the EM equations. So one would expect that the generalized solution to also
solves the EM equation as a mathematical distribution.

A similar idea yields the free electron flat disk like structure.

What do you think?

@Simon

So you try to explain everything with EM. DO you have source terms as well? As far as I understand there is photons in the Mills model as well (behind the seen and sometimes shows up). Have you done
and analysis combining the photon and the charge field do you have mathematics that describes the fields?

Regards
Stefan

My calculation shows also that you get the excited states

R = lambda * n

But what these calculation don't show the function representing hydrino states e.g. a superposition of waves having

R = lambda / n

Anyone who have a clue how to represent the associated photon standing wave in the resonant cavity for hydrinos?

To further explain and highlight that the key to proper mathematical understanding of Mills theory is the expansion of plane waves in various ways.

We have a photon inside the atom that is trapped. Consider the superpositioning of EM plane waves assume that the wave vectors of all the plane waves are evenly distributed e.g. they live on a sphere with constant radi. Again the theorem where you expand the plane wave in bessel function and spherical harmoics apply and we get the explicit solution of the electrical potential as

~ j_0(|r|w/c)exp(i w t), r = sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)

j_0(x) = sin(x)/x and hence |r|w/c = 2pi for a zero
<=> |r|2 pi f / c = 2 pi
<=> |r| 1/(1/f c) = 1
<=> |r| 1 / (T c) = 1
<=> |r| / lambda = 1
<=> |r| = lambda

So the lambda of the trapped photon has to be the same as the radi as described in option geeks post above.

I think that in order to understand a proof of this you should in stead of the taken path, expand the plane wave in the fourier transform
into a sum of spherical bessel functions and spherical harmonics, the sum will cancel almost all terms but a single bessel and spherical
harmonic that match the same quantum number of the Mills charge distribution due to orthogonality. You will end up with the fourier transform being:

(*) j_l(|s|r) Y_lm(theta,phi)

Which is much better because the stated equation (38) in Mills takes convolution with all factors except the last having s. You just can't show that
this expression dissapears because of the property of the convolution. now for a specific w0 |s| has a certain magnitude for light like wave numbers
and hence r can be chooses so that (*) e.g. |s|r represents a zero of the spherical bessel function and (*) is shown to be zero for all light like s,w.

To understand everything that is written is hard though. In all to motivate the non radiation one only needs a half of page I think and could keep
it much much simpler than whats written in the book.

Regards
Stefan

@Epimetheus

I don't understand this connection, the radial solutions are essentially Laguerre polynomials + exponential for Shrödingers equation of hydrogene and
in the derivation you gave me he uses spherical bessel functions as a radial function. So I can't follow this line of thoughts. But it is true that the fourier
transform with spherical bessel functions for the radial part indeed fourier transform into Mills charge distribution.

Regards
Stefan

@Epimetheus

Thanks, yes there is a connection indeed, how does this extend to QED?

Regards

@Eric
read the book there is a 3 dimensional structure there is photons and charge spheres and I agree that it is an over simplification of Mills theory to just concentrate on the charge sphere shell. Really this charged sphere is just a boundary condition added to maxwells equations.

No you don't need to overlay QM, it can very well work as I said using elctrodynamics only. But I agree that both QM and Mills theory represents 3 dimensional fields in that way they overlay as a concept for electron capture. As I said before QM has a very difficult force interaction and Mills have just plain o'l classical physic forces. That's the main reason to take Mills seriously and for him to claim superiority.

Okey.

First i don't believe that the electron is a point particle even in QM and that it is the fields that are the physics e.g. the wave equation is not a probability equation for a point particle. I base this on the observations

1. The total lagrangian that describes how EM is connected to QM does not use a particle but only the fields (wavefunctions) hence the fields are the physics.
2. a charged trapped particle where the fields are not the physics means that it will radiate and the atom would not be stable
3. the physics e.g. the fields need to collapse in a QM world as well cause they are real.
4. QM wave functions representing actual physical fields means that entanglement becomes unmystified and not strange at all.

So there is a good argument that actually the QM soup of charge field collapses into the nucleus and is not due to some random possitioning of the electron at the nucleus and is not due to a mysterious point particle that has a positive probability to be close to the nucleus.

Now mills model the nucleus as photons and charge that are a little different than the atom physics of electron charge and photons. The two systems are very similar but slightly different in how they are assembled. So setting up a photon and a charge you can reach atom sizes and bending the fields you get a compression of the charge and photon system to the small size of the nucleus if there is enough "force" to twist the the system available. So the basic ingriediences is already there, mills does not explain how all this works in detail but just the oppertunity to be able to do just this -which is obvious from this modelling - means that you can't dismiss Mills theory as unlikely just due to your assumptions on how QM is working which I have very good reason to challange.

There are quite a possibility that there is an error or over fudging in the logic you refer to. But I can't judge that with my experience - just that I question the reality of it because of the reasons above.

So the inner captured photon in Mills theory communicates as well with the nucleus there is a proximity of the electromagnetics just outside the nucleus that allows a transition, the transition rates can be calculated. I don't see how this is not even wrong as long as you have a proximity transitions via electromagnetism that can be taken? can you explain?

@Eric
yes you read me right with more than babysitting is a term I like and use. Please note that I too asked to be baysitted through the correct meaning and mathematical + physcial interpretation of the reference system changes. But I also maintain that this lack of understanding is a weak critique. Because the same transform is used over and over again and I can't fathom that this could yield an oppertunity for delicate fudging to so correct formulas.

To note I tend to be a bit critical to some of the bashing of QM - it really has to have a value. For example QM is non radiating if you interpret the wavefunction as a representation of a physical field. QM with it's combined lagrangian with the maxwell equation will not radiate as I understand for eigen values solutions. This is known. But still you can see that Mills is bashing QM to be radiating. On the other hand the physical meaning of the wavefunction as what forces are working seams to be way to complicated to be representing a good base to found the physics on. Mills is much better here where the rules is just to let the electron shell centrifugal force balance the coloumb force (in it's simplest form) e.g. what Mills teach us is that there is a great oppertunity to base our modelling on plain ol physics and as a croelaruim you may derive what QM represents.

Also something you can hear is that QM is all fudge factors does not really match my interpretation of how QED is derived. The basics is that you assume the space is filled with a soup of waves and that locally to get the momentum you take the derivative, to get the energy you take the time derivative etc. Then you say that einsteins special relativity should be satisfied and voila Klein Gordon appears and as a small extention also the final QED equations. So what we have done is modeled the world as a soup of waves and constrained it to satisfy some known fundamental law there really is not much fudging here and it do yield a few good predictions. Mills is right and more probable as a theory because it doesn't need much new complex physics. We should be able to see a correspondance between QM and Mills but the true exact mathematical nature of this correspondance is unknown to me.

I don't think that it is impossible for Mills theory to explain low orbit electron capturing. He does indicate how to treat this case in his latest versíon of the book and it does so by using the traped photon(s) that is indeed in contact with the nucleus and will when it colappses into the nucleus drag the charges with it. This is basically what you shohuld have in the QM representation as well, the atom sized wavefunction of the electron needs to collapse into the nucleus as well. (I think that the probability of a particle formulation is wrong here, the wavefunction corresponds to a physical field).

Also the correlations of spins you get in the "teleportation" experiments is just a correlation that are created at the source of the rays. Mills claim that his theory predict this to a great degree so entanglement is reproduced as it should cause it is well known and actually quite natural and ordinary physics of conservation of spinn.

@THuxley

You need to follow the clues (references) and it is useful to have a piece of paper and pen and good reference materials, wikipedia can help many times etc. So to follow the origin needs you to do some research. So in a sense I understand your conlclusion the work is not easy to comprehend. A lot of material is spread out. A linear read of the book is hard. One deciphers fact after fact and surprisingly where I were in your position thinking that smething was fudge, further work by me could fill in the gaps and things got more understandable. Atm after all my
work the only fudge I can see is the conclusions drawn from changing reference frames. I find this difficult to follow and is used almost everywhere. The only bulls eye simple derivation I know of is the calculation of the ionisation energy of the hydrogene atom.If you skip the magnetic part you will be able to see the deduction without the change of reference system. I can give you the resolution and derivation from physical quantities if you explain where you get stuck. This still is not easy to do but but is the easiest fact to babysit someone through.

Also anybody if you can explain the physics and mathematics of the change of reference system to me I would be super glad. Anyway this current weakness has not the amount of freedom (he uses the same trick over and over again) to fusdge much so I consider all this a weakness in the presentation and my ability.

@Epimetheus

Mills have two proofs in his book about the non radiation. In the first one it looks like he take the convolution of factors, one which has a zero. But it is unclear to me (It is generally wrong)
that the resulted convolution has a zero as well. Do you follow me or did I make a misstake here?

If anyone wants to contact me in persion its [email protected], I'm pretty busy atm and my comments is from past experiences mostly.

" I don't recall anyone claiming that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents one from obtaining a precise expectation value for an observable, to the extent that one's measurement instruments and the physical process allow. Perhaps you can ground this objection by making it more concrete? What is a concrete example of someone saying that because quantum mechanics/the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it is not possible to obtain a good expectation value, where in fact Mills's calculations show that you can?
"

As an example, if I don't missrember, the calulation of the fusion rate in hot fusion is off without using Heisenbergs inequality.

I made the following calculation which is not peer reviewed and has errors but I think that the method indicated has all ingredients to be a good proof.

see:

http://c-lambda.se/maxwell.pdf

Regards

"What's the lesson to draw here? Most cite Semmelweiss as some sort of evidence that the mainstream is wrong. He was right. The mainstream was wrong. But ... his example also shows how not to communicate what one has found. Could he have done better? I don't know. But probably."

What is true. Getting angry because people are stupid and can't see the obvious and then after using good communication move over to rants and harch words or starting out communicating in a negative way or start out beeing a prick. There is a time line in the behavior
of semmelwise, he could have started of with good arguments and well behaving but beeing rejected over and over again by stupidity. Good arguments doesn't always bite in my experience and he obviously didn't get the reward he deserved which proabably explains his later
behavior.

@Other calculations ...

The ionisation energies of all atoms included in the book seams to be correctly calculated and I find that modulo that reference frame trick the derivation is quite ok. To get the last decimals it looks a bit tweaked
though and I think that a general method solving an energy minimization proiblem is needed to convince me that the solutions are the right one - but say the first 2-3 digits seam to be okay as a derivation.

The g-factor calculation is also ok module the reference frame trick that I don't undersa. I could follow this to 5 digits or so of accuracy.

One of the proof of non radiation has serious flaws if you ask me. I posted my own proof of it here before and can do it again if you ask me.

the mass ratio between muon, electron etc claculated the right values and the derivation seams to be okay here again. There is a formula for the mass of the electron as well but that look bogus to me because it is circular
something that proponents of Mills theory often misses.

I do note that there is a consistancy in the trick I can't follow - so this can't account for a random tuning of the formula to the answer.

@"Error" in the context of the uncertainty principle is a potentially misleading term.
Well it is as you say an error with structure, I'm fully aware of it. In my book this can mean exactly what you say - I'm actually an expert when it comes to statistics so I view errors as not only "white noise" but colored. But this
does not change my point in the argument you still get error bars and people stop trying to refine the model when they discover that. My point is also that it is possible that by modelling fields with hefty oscilating waves which dissapears
to a great degree when you take the norm of the Phi you will pay with an error structure that should match something like Heisenbergs inequalty.

>> Researchers in the US have successfully teleported information encoded into particles of light over 100 kilometres of optical fibre, smashing the previous distance record of 25 km.

This is a common bogus interpretation, information is fixed at common sorce and doe to that both signals are correlated at the beginning they are correlated at the end. I repeat if this statement where true
physisist would not do aspect experiments. The whole idea with the information beeing fixed at the beginning, something Einstein assumed have been tried to evaluate and one typically does this with the
Bells inequality. The issue though is that although "normal" hidden variables can be dissmissed for sane particle formualtion, for fields, however, with laws that are non local, like Quantum mechanics, or for systems
that follows an approximate nonlocal law with fields the conclusion that the system is fixed at the beginning still is valid. As I said before Mills have reproduced Aspects tests, and all experiments in this buissnees is
variations on this.

If polaritons existance depends on a mysterious action at distance then they are only a theoretical construct. I'm pretty sure that action at distance is not proven to be a probable factual reality else physists would not bother to continue do verisons of the Aspect experiemnent to rule out other interpretations than action at distance via evaluating Bells inequality. That they still use this method means that nowhere in physics that is acceptable as close to truth there have been a proof that action at distance exists. As I said before what we know is that the action must involve non localness. When we consider point particles breaking this is severe, but if the quantities are fields than this side condition is not as devastating and GUTCP is about fields of various kinds and no point particles. Qm itself can be seen as the fields beeing the pphysical quantities but with weired forces acting on these quantities that human minds don't have a sensible chance to understand. That's why I think that MIlls theory is so attractive, we can setup a force balance using newton, einstein and Maxwell etc and our understanding from the global world can at advantage be applied to the atomic and subatomic world.

If polaritons is just a consequence of the aspect test and not action at distance then Mills theory have them as well.