Quantum field theory

*'Quantum Yang-Mills theory is now the foundation of most of elementary particle theory, and its predictions have been tested at many experimental laboratories, but its mathematical foundation is still unclear. The successful use of Yang-Mills theory to describe the strong interactions of elementary particles depends on a subtle quantum mechanical property called the "mass gap:" the quantum particles have positive masses, even though the classical waves travel at the speed of light.' -*

*http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Yang-Mills_Theory/*

Is there charge in empty space? QFT is not very lucid on this. Whereas Dirac said the vacuum is full of virtual charge, and used this to predict antimatter, which was then detected by Anderson in 1932 (resulting in a Nobel Prize for Dirac), there is the issue that a vacuum completely full of charge would polarize around real charge, cancelling it completely.

Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga showed that the vacuum is not full of free charge or it would cancel out real charges by becoming totally polarized. Instead, there is a limit or cutoff to the amount of polarization, at a collision energy which corresponds to a very small distance from the middle of the electron. This comes from the need to renormalize the charge of the electron, in order to force the QFT to predict the electron's magnetic moment and Lamb shift accurately.

So free (polarizable) charge pairs can only exist close to the middle of the electron, where the electromagnetic field is strong enough, presumably, to break the bonds of the vacuum sea of charges, and free the charges so that they can then become polarized and cause the right amount of shielding for QFT to work. So from causality + QFT, the vacuum doesn't contain any free charge but must be full of bound charge which is broken up into free charge in the strong fields near a fundamental particle (real charge core).

There are virtual particles polarized in the strong field near real charge cores, and these must come from some mechanism. The strong field breaks up the orderly vacuum structure for a small distance, allowing it to become polarized which shields some of the real particle charge.

The classical 'solar system' model falls because it is fake. The planets don't do around the sun in true ellipses because they perturb each other. Because all the planets are of small mass compared to the sun, the solar system looks approximately deterministic, but it isn't. You can't solve it analytically (this is the '3 body problem'), so you have to use approximations which get less and less accurate. If you want to know where the earth will be in its orbit in 100 million years, the inaccuracies are so great that all you can do is to specify the probability of finding the earth at any given distance from the sun. It is not deterministic, it is statistical on long time scales. This 3+ body problem is called Poincare chaos and has been known over 100 years. 'Classical theory', not quantum theory, is horse*hit.

Newton's is just an approximate theory. It can't calculate the real world deterministically to absolute accuracy, even given absolutely known initial conditions.The electron is a far worse case because you have (1) got the fact that the electron has equal charge to the proton it is orbiting, not a charge far smaller (mass represents gravitational 'charge' in any quantum gravity), and (2) the size scale of the range of virtual particles in the vacuum is big enough to knock and deflect the electron randomly as the electron moves in the vacuum (Heisenberg's law says product of energy of virtual particles and the time they exist is h over 2 Pi or whatever, hence by rearranging and putting in the energy for an electron-positron pair, you get the time they exist, 10^-21 second; assuming as an exaggeration they go at speed c, this gives you a maximum range of virtual particles in the vacuum of ct = 10^-12 metre).

In addition, you have the 3+ body problem of the multiple charges. Even in the simplest case, a H atom, you have proton, electron, and a third particle you use to probe to find out where the electron appears to be. This gives you 3 bodies hence Poincare chaos. In practical situations, you have many more electrons. I give sources and references for this stuff on my site at locations like http://feynman137.tripod.com/#b.

An electron has some chance of being found at a great range of locations, and the classical picture at best just indicates where it is most probably to find it. 'Most probable' is misleading if a large number of locations have equal or nearly equal probability, producing the electron 'cloud'. Quantum mechanics doesn't even estimate the statistical probability of finding an electron at a given location directly when you have anything more complex than a H atom in an empty universe. At least in that case, QM allows you to predict probabilities of finding the electron at different locations. All multi electron atoms are beyond quantum mechanics and can only be solved by introducing approximations and simplifying assumptions which make the situation into a 'corrected' version of the H atom. You can't trust any claims made by quantum mechanics gurus who wave their arms around, Feynman was right to say denounce it. Feynman says, in his book

*Character of Physical Law,*page 57-8 (1964 Cornell lectures, broadcast on BBC2 in 1965):

'It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities.'

Feynman said, in

*Character of Physical Law,*pp. 171-3:

'The inexperienced, and crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but [with extensive knowledge of the actual facts rather than speculative theories of physics] you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. ... There will be a degeneration of ideas, just like the degeneration that great explorers feel is occurring when tourists begin moving in on a territory.'

It isn't electrostatic forces which control chemistry, it is the 'Pauli exclusion principle'. The key assertion of the exclusion principle for physics is that in any adjacent pair of electrons, the spins are opposite. Since spins are linked to magnetic moments in QED, this suggests that the periodic table and all bonding arrangements are based on magnetic repulsion/attraction in addition to the electric Coulomb forces. The 'Pauli exclusion principle' just says that the four quantum numbers of any electron (describing shell, its shape, etc, as well as spin) are a unique set for each electron in an atom. So far as shell number goes, this is just stating that the electron is not in two shells at once, which is just a statement that the electron behaves classical law not indeterminacy horse*hit (I'm not in two rooms at once). The Pauli exclusion principle is insightful in saying that adjacent electrons always have opposite spins: this is why most materials are non-magnetic seen from a large distance, the magnetic moments of the electrons cancel one another out. But at short range, there are magnetic forces which are important for determining atomic stucture and chemical bonding.These are always referred to as 'Pauli exclusion principle' instead of the more candid term 'magnetic force due to spin'.

See:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pauli.html#c2 (which is a horse*hit description), andhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/nacl.html (which at least has a graph).

Consider H-H bonding. Why should two hydrogen atoms bond together to form H_2? The H_2 molecule is in a lower energy state than 2H. The two shared electrons pair with opposite spins (one up, one down). If you drop magnets in a box and shake it up, they end up side by side, north pole of one beside south pole of the other, and vice versa. This is the lowest energy state, which occurs naturally. So all of this quantum stuff is found to have not classical, but mechanistic basis.

The accepted facts of the Standard Model are based on Yang Mills (gauge boson exchange).

Forces are caused because the radiation has momentum, like all bosons such as photons of light.

It allows quantitative predictions to be made such as forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and particle masses.

If it does raise more questions, that is science. After all, any step forward does that. The only way to stop more questions is to accept rubbish like extra dimensional string theory or Ptolemy's epicycles, or the lambda-CDM model of cosmology. Real science does raise questions, one of which is whether it is right. Message to the stringers: 'If you can predict the quantitative strength of gravity or electromagnetism better, go ahead, but until then, stop making background noise to suppress the proved verifiable facts.'

Positive and negative charges may emit gauge bosons which spin in opposite directions relative to the direction of propagation. The gauge bosons will have a regular normal (integer) spin (unlike the half integer spin of electrons which is more complex, like a Mobius strip being spun) and maybe all that distinguishes those of different charges is the direction of spin relative to the direction they go, whether it is clockwise. If you picture the gauge boson as a corkscrew, two similar corkscrews going in opposite directions (from similar charges) will oppose each other's spin and interfere. But two corkscrews with opposite spin going in opposite directions will add up without interference.

Move a fixed-area shield twice as far from you, and the fraction of the total spherical area around you which is shielded falls by the inverse square of the distance! The absolute force is equal to {the total inward force which is ~ 10^43 N for gravity, multiplied by the fraction of the total spherical volume around you which is shielded. Hence for an inward force of 10^43 N, if 1 % of the spherical area around you is shielded by a charge, the net force is simply 10^41 N.

If you want to know where these gauge bosons come from, they are emitted by accelerating charge (spinning charges have centripetal acceleration and radiate energy, they don't lose energy by doing this because all charges do it, so there is equilibrium as the universe is old).

It is simply an experimental fact that radiation is emitted due to acceleration. Centripetal acceleration due to the spin of a charge loop emits this radiation. My page http://feynman137.tripod.com/ and my blog http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ present the evidence. For example, the gauge bosons travel in closed loops between masses, the gauge boson energy is conserved, because this is a characteristic of the loop quantum gravity derivation of general relativity (without a metric) from quantum field theory. The contraction caused by suc gauge boson radiation pressure is like running into a storm of bullets. They hit you harder (with greater momentum) if you run into them head on, since the momentum you receive depends on yor motion. This causes the contraction, just like that from the force from the air pressure on the front of a car moving at high speed. The main difference between air and the gauge bosons is that they penetrate to fundamental masses, and are not stopped by the outer layer of atoms, and they don't carry away energy by being speeded up as such, or by transferring energy into heat, because there is no mechanism by which this could occur.

If you see my old (superseded) paper on CERN Doc Server, I started off with the hydrodynamic analogy to calculate gravity first: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=706468&ln=en (this paper is now obsolete and cannot be updated as CERN has closed all updates except via carbon copies from arXiv.org, which censored me in 2002). The gauge boson mechanism is mathematically equivalent, as proved by the side by side calculations on my home page at the section: http://feynman137.tripod.com/#h

Two similar charges are exchanging radiation beween one another, causing the recoil apart! The exchange is only prevented between charges or masses for neutral charged masses (gravity) and dissimilar charges (electric attraction), where the exchange continues with the surrounding universe, which causes the dissimilar charges or masses to be pushed together from the outside of the line of shielding between them.

Two masses or two opposite charges are shielding one another along the lines joining them (the lines are actually double cones, because each charge has a fixed size).

Two similar masses are exchanging beween one another, causing predominant repulsion.

Redshift occurs in the expansion of the universe, and the mechanism by which it occurs for gauge bosons need not be considered different than that by which it occurs for visible light. See http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm for a disproof of all "alternatives" to cosmological redshift (redshift is easily demonstrated to be a factual mechanism, by contrast with pseudo-scientific belief system speculation on "tired light" which has no evidence behind it whatsoever).

I've said that redshift may be just a slowing down of light speed, in which case the amount of redshift is determined by the difference in speed between us and the object emitting the light. All redshift means is that we see fewer cycles per second than was emitted. The fact light is transverse rather than longitudinal like sound, does not alter the fact that if it does slow down, we will see fewer cycles per second (i.e., we will see it redshifted).

If the explanation for Michelson-Morley is as Sir Eddington says (he stated that the contraction of the instrument exactly offsets the variation in lght speed by giving it a shorter path to travel where it is slowed down), then the CBR emitted at 300,000 years after BB comes to us at 6 km/s. Light/radiation emitted at time zero will come to us at speed 0 km/s. Light emitted at half the age of the universe will come to us at 50% of c. The percentage is not a fixed fraction, but is proportional to the age of the material. All were considering is the possibility that redshift is caused by light coming to us more slowly. Hence light from the sun comes to us at c, light from galaxies at 1,500,000,000 light years comes to us at 90% of c (because they are receding from us at 10% of c), etc.

This argument is irrelevant for the gravity-electromagnetism mechanism. The figure of 10^80 hydrogen atoms in the universe is measured by multiplying the average material (directly observed) density of the universe by its spherical volume out to how far light travels in the age of the universe (time since BB).

This figure has always been the same. Back in the 1930s it was calculated by Eddington who used Hubble's grossly exaggerated value of the Hubble constant (Hubble thought it was 540 km/s/megaparsec - which is 6-8 times too high - because he under-estimated the distances to stars by confusing two populations of Cepheid variables, which he used as measuring sticks for relative distances in multiplying up absolute distances derived from accurate parallax measurements locally).

Eddington got the right answer because the two massive errors in his calculation largely cancelled each other out. He underestimated the size of the universe because the excessive Hubble constant underestimated the age of the universe (if Hubble constant H is expressed in SI units it has units of 1/seconds, and 1/H is the age of the universe ignoring gravitational deceleration, whereas 2/(3H) is the age of the universe assuming a critical density between collapse and infinite expansion, assuming falsely that gravity is independent of the BB not the result of a mechanism based on the BB), but he overestimated the density of the universe for the same reason. Hence the mass he calculated by multiplying two numbers (one a gross overestimate, and one a gross underestimate) happened to turn out fairly accurate.

Because the false (high) figure of the Hubble constant used in the 1930s implies an age of the universe 6-8 times less than today's figure (2,000 million years in the 1930s, compared to a modern figure around 15,000 million years), the apparent measured density of the universe was over-estimated by a massive factor in the 1930s.

Because masses of galaxies were not known accurately then the density estimates were known to have large error margins, but the over-estimate made the apparent density of the universe in agreement with the critical density of general relativity. Later data takes away the exaggerated (high) density value, and so there is a disagreement which is filled by the ad hoc dark matter hypothesis.

The gravity mechanism dispenses with this by showing the true density when general relativity is made a quantum theory of gravity is not the critical density but is smaller by a factor of (e^3)/2 which is a factor of just over 10. This brings the observed density of the universe today into alignment with theory. It also gets rid of dark energy because the gravity mechanism doesn't cause gravitational retardation on expansion. The postulate of dark energy comes from a small positive cosmological constant added to a general relativity cosmology with critical density (ie the Lambda-CDM model) to cancel out gravitational retardation by causing an acceleration wich cancels out the long range postulated gravitational deceleration which is not observed in supernovae redshifts. Gravity mechanism gets rid of gravitational retardation at long ranges by physical mechanism (there are several equivalent ways to formulate this argument, the most brief and least rigorous being the simple statement to people that gauge bosons are redshifted like light over vast distances, so gravity doesn't cause distant supernovae to slow down). Hence it predicted the correct supernovae recession rates via the Oct 96 issue of Electronics World, two whole years before Perlmutter's experimental results confirmed it. There is no ad hoc dark energy because that isn't needed to counteract gravitational deceleration over vast distances, because the latter is a falsehood due to ignoring the details of quantum gravity mechanism in general relativity.

*SCIENTIFIC METHOD:*

**OBSERVATION -> DATA ->GRAPH, TABLE, MATRIX OF RESULTS -> EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS -> UNIFYING LAW -> MECHANISM.**

In long discussions with Catt, he insisted that he did not comprehend the above sequence, despite my explanations of chemistry and thermodynamics as examples of the sequence. Quantum field theory and general relativity are at the stage of unifying laws, not mechanisms. Catt claims that Dirac's equation is like phlogiston or caloric, which I explained is a falsehood because phlogiston and caloric were false attempts to jump straight to a mechanism without a mathematical model which was successful. Catt tries to claim Ockham's Razor gets rid of all empirical equations or data, which is false, because those equations are simply awaiting unification and finally mechanism to explain them and at the same time predict other stuff.

The spectacular test was when Nature published Permutter's paper "A Supernovae at Half the Age of the Universe" (or whatever it was called) in1998. It fell on the curve predicted by my paper. I asked Brian Josephson to co-author the 2003 Electronics World paper to get people to listen. The mainstream always ignore and suppress or obfuscate to reverse findings. The 1971 experiment with atomic clocks flown around the world in airliners proved absolute motion, although see below how it was cleverly obfuscated

*to imply the exact opposite,*like the M-M experiment and Aspect's entanglement experiment (the EPR paradox in the Copenhagen Interpretation was simply ignored as a disproof of the latter and taken to be proof of many universes within Bohr's mindset...):

From my page on the 1971 experiment http://feynman137.tripod.com/:

Professor Paul Davies very indirectly and obscurely (accidentally?) defends Einstein's 1920 'ether and relativity' lecture .In 1995, physicist Professor Paul Davies - who won the Templeton Prize for religion (I think it was $1,000,000), wrote on pp54-57 of his book About Time:'Whenever I read dissenting views of time, I cannot help thinking of Herbert Dingle... who wrote ... Relativity for All, published in 1922. He became Professor ... at University College London... In his later years, Dingle began seriously to doubt Einstein's concept ... Dingle ... wrote papers for journals pointing out Einstein's errors and had them rejected ... In October 1971, J.C. Hafele [used atomic clocks to defend Einstein] ... You can't get much closer to Dingle's 'everyday' language than that.'

Now, let's check out J.C. Hafele.J. C. Hafele is against crackpot science: Hafele writes in

*Science*vol. 177 (1972) pp 166-8 that he uses 'G. Builder (1958)' for analysis of the atomic clocks.G. Builder (1958) is an article called 'ETHER AND RELATIVITY' in

*Australian Journal of Physics,*v11, 1958, p279, which states:'... we conclude that the relative retardation of clocks... does indeed compel us to recognise the CAUSAL SIGNIFICANCE OF ABSOLUTE velocities.'

Einstein himself slipped up in one paper when he wrote that a clock at the earth's equator, because of the earth's spin, runs more slowly than one at the pole. One argument, see http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p12.html, is that the reason why special relativity fails is that gravitational 'blueshift' given by general relativity cancels out the time dilation: 'The gravitational blueshift of a clock on the equator precisely cancels the time dilation associated with its motion.'It is true that general relativity is involved here, see the proof below of the general relativity gravity effect from the Lorentz transformation using Einstein's equivalence principle. The problem is that there are absolute velocities, and special relativity by itself gives the wrong answers! You need general relativity, which introduces absolute motion, because it deals with acceleration like rotation, and observers can detect rotation as a net force, if in a sealed box that is rotating. It is not subject to the principle of relativity, which does not apply to accelerations. Other Einstein innovations were also confused:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,3928978-103681,00.html, http://www.italian-american.com/depretreview.htm, http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm.

'Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced . I have not availed myself of his substitutions, only because the formulae are rather complicated and look somewhat artificial.' - Hendrik A. Lorentz (discoverer of time-dilation in 1893, and re-discoverer of George FitzGerald's 1889 formula for contraction in the direction of motion due to aether).

As Eddington said, light speed is absolute but undetectable in the Michelson-Morley experiment owing to the fact the instrument contracts in the direction of motion, allowing the slower light beam to cross a smaller distance and thus catch up:

'The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for - the delay of one of the light waves - is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus... The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.'

- Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919),

*Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory,*Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.

Experimental confirmations which prove the mechanism:In 1996 I proved - contrary to the mainstream general relativity model of cosmology - that by the mechanism of gravity the universe is not decelerating. The mainstream model has the universe expanding ever more slowly because of the effect of gravity.This was confirmed experimentally in 1998 by Perlmutter, published in Nature (without mentioning my work, which Nature's ed, Philip Campbell, had said in an autographed letter to me on 25/26 Nov 96 that he was "not able" to publish, and a day before/later his physical sciences ed said the same thing about a review paper proposal I sent on a related mechanism topic).In addition to this, the mechanism predicts the strength of gravity and electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and particle masses correctly and is further checkable as the astronomical data used (like density of universe and Hubble parameter) become more accurately known.

However, two mainstream theories (sting theory for forces and the Lambda-CDM cosmology) which are entirely ad hoc and non-checkable are used to suppress my work. Verification just brings you a stream of abuse from the mainstream, nobody sits up and listens. Nature wouldn't publish my prediction in 1996, nor would they publish a paper showing how the experimental results confirmed the prediction in 1998.If you look at what "string theorists" and mainstream Lambda-CDM cosmologists are saying, they are all bitter people. Ask them about physics, and they reply by saying how impossible it is for anyone to understand them if they aren't genius.

Professor Hawking writes in an essay that two crackpots sent him mutually incompatible ideas, proving that the are both totally wrong. You can immediately see that just because two theories are incompatible, does not prove that both are wrong. One can be right and the other wrong, or both can be partly right and partly wrong, so that they are incompatible. Hawking is then a charlatan because he and others claim say general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics, but don't claim that this incompatibility proves both are 100% wrong. The submessage of the mainstream is clear: 'Everyone with alternatives is wrong, and I'm so clever I know everyone else is wrong without having to check or verify it.' This is not really a scientific attitude, unless science is now purely a matter of snobbery. For those of us who entered science to escape snobbery and that kind of content-less political time-wasting, that is kind of ironic.

It reminds you of the story of Faraday being forced to act as servant to Davy's wife during their European scientific tour. There was nothing scientific about that. At the end of the day it is fairly obvious that scientists and editors are unprofessional if they are being bribed to hype extra dimensional string theory, whether the bribes are paid by free market book publishers, mad eccentrics, or by tax payers via the government quangos.

On relativity and absolute motion: the cosmic background radiation is incredibly uniform in all directions except for effects due to the earth's absolute motion. This "new aether drift" was published in Scientific American in 1977 or thereabouts. There are also semi-mainstream objections to special relativity like http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0406023 but I think two things are needed to get rid of special relativity: (1) a full causal mechanism for how contraction, time-dilation etc occur due to effects of the spacetime fabric on matter and (2) a final theory which predicts everything. You aren't going to get rid of "Einstein" (although he was anti-special relativity after 1915, and gave the pro-aether speech in 1920 at Leyden) until you have a final theory which answers all physics questions.

The main issue is getting a causal electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism, but I don't think that is going to be too difficult. The really fun part will be the run-in with orthodoxy. By including general relativity and the Standard Model as limiting approximations of the final theory, plus including a summary of all the maths of quantum field theory and tensor analysis, the mainstream orthodoxy will find it ever harder to make meaningful sneers. They have a limited list of tactics, and if they call you crackpot you can point out that the only facts you are using are mainstream ones, which if you do it lucidly (i.e. briefly) enough with a single short sentence, really is a proper defence.

Responding to an email from R. P. Feynman's erstwhile co-author, Prof. Jonathan Post (might as well

From: Nigel Cook

To: jonathan post ; David Tombe ; epola@tiscali.co.uk ; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 8:53 PM

Subject: Re: Heat wave, wonderings, Re: Sodium Chloride and Magnetic Spin Moment

Dear Jonathan,

Vacuum polarization is the mechanism for renormalization which is vital in calculating the correct magnetic moment of electron predicted from Dirac equation is defined as exactly 1 Bohr magneton. By 1947 it was known this value is too low by around 0.12%

QED by Schwinger in 1948 increased it to 1 + (alpha)/(twice Pi) = 1.00116 Bohr magnetons, the added (alpha)/(twice Pi) factor being the first additional Feynman coupling diagram for the photon (or whatever the magnetic mediator is) from the electron to interact with the virtual particles and inbetween mediating magnetism from the electron core to the observer's instrument. You have to remember that the polarized vacuum of virtual charges affect the electron's (Dirac theory) characteristics. This comes from the shell game: the virtual particles in successive shells add very slightly to the magnetic field from the real electron core.

Renormalization comes about physically in this calculation because alpha is the dimensionless 1/137... factor. Vacuum polarization around the real electron core means that virtual positrons are closer to the core than virtual electrons, so there is a net electric field arrow from the polarized charge which points the opposite way to that from the core, cancelling most of the electron's charge.

The electron charge we observe from large distances is -e. But when we get closer to the electron core, by hitting electrons together at 92 GeV so that they approach closely, the charge rises by 7%. I've got an calculation which shows that if you could eliminate the polarized shielding shell around the core, you would see the charge rise by a factor of 1/alpha, or a factor of 137...

Heisenberg's uncertainty says [we are measuring the uncertainty in distance in one direction only, radial distance from a centre; for two directions like up or down a line the uncertainty is only half this, i.e., it equal h/(4.Pi) instead of H/(2.Pi)]:

pd = h/(2.Pi)

where p is uncertainty in momentum, d is uncertainty in distance.This comes from his imaginary gamma ray microscope, and is usually written as a minimum (instead of with "=" as above), since there will be other sources of uncertainty in the measurement process.

For light wave momentum p = mc,pd = (mc)(ct) = Et where E is uncertainty in energy (E=mc^2), and t is uncertainty in time.

Hence, Et = h/(2.Pi)

t = h/(2.Pi.E)

d/c = h/(2.Pi.E)

d = hc/(2.Pi.E)

This result is used to show that a 80 GeV energy W or Z gauge boson will have a range of 10^-17 m. So it's OK.

Now, E = Fd implies

d = hc/(2.Pi.E) = hc/(2.Pi.Fd)

Hence

F = hc/(2.Pi.d^2)

This force between electrons is 1/alpha, or 137.036, times higher than Coulomb's law for unit fundamental charges.Notice that in the last sentence I've suddenly gone from thinking of d as an uncertainty in distance, to thinking of it as actual distance between two charges; but the gauge boson has to go that distance to cause the force anyway.Clearly what's physically happening is that the true force is 137.036 times Coulomb's law, so the real charge is 137.036. This is reduced by the correction factor 1/137.036 because most of the charge is screened out by polarised charges in the vacuum around the electron core:

"... we find that the electromagnetic coupling grows with energy. This can be explained heuristically by remembering that the effect of the polarization of the vacuum ... amounts to the creation of a plethora of electron-positron pairs around the location of the charge. These virtual pairs behave as dipoles that, as in a dielectric medium, tend to screen this charge, decreasing its value at long distances (i.e. lower energies)." - arxiv hep-th/0510040, p 71.

Dr M. E. Rose (Chief Physicist, Oak Ridge National Lab.), Relativistic Electron Theory, John Wiley & Sons, New York and London, 1961, pp 75-6:

'The solution to the difficulty of negative energy states [in relativistic quantum mechanics] is due to Dirac [P. A. M. Dirac,

*Proc. Roy. Soc. (London),*A126, p360, 1930]. One defines the vacuum to consist of no occupied positive energy states and all negative energy states completely filled. This means that each negative energy state contains two electrons. An electron therefore is a particle in a positive energy state with all negative energy states occupied. No transitions to these states can occur because of the Pauli principle. The interpretation of a single unoccupied negative energy state is then a particle with positive energy ... The theory therefore predicts the existence of a particle, the positron, with the same mass and opposite charge as compared to an electron. It is well known that this particle was discovered in 1932 by Anderson [C. D. Anderson, Phys. Rev., 43, p491, 1933].

'Although the prediction of the positron is certainly a brilliant success of the Dirac theory, some rather formidable questions still arise. With a completely filled 'negative energy sea' the complete theory (hole theory) can no longer be a single-particle theory.

'The treatment of the problems of electrodynamics is seriously complicated by the requisite elaborate structure of the vacuum. The filled negative energy states need produce no observable electric field. However, if an external field is present the shift in the negative energy states produces a polarisation of the vacuum and, according to the theory, this polarisation is infinite.

'In a similar way, it can be shown that an electron acquires infinite inertia (self-energy) by the coupling with the electromagnetic field which permits emission and absorption of virtual quanta. More recent developments show that these infinities, while undesirable, are removable in the sense that they do not contribute to observed results [J. Schwinger,

*Phys. Rev.,*74, p1439, 1948, and 75, p651, 1949; S. Tomonaga,

*Prog. Theoret. Phys. (Kyoto),*1, p27, 1949].

'For example, it can be shown that starting with the parameters e and m for a bare Dirac particle, the effect of the 'crowded' vacuum is to change these to new constants e' and m', which must be identified with the observed charge and mass. ... If these contributions were cut off in any reasonable manner, m' - m and e' - e would be of order alpha ~ 1/137. No rigorous justification for such a cut-off has yet been proposed.'All this means that the present theory of electrons and fields is not complete. ... The particles ... are treated as 'bare' particles. For problems involving electromagnetic field coupling this approximation will result in an error of order alpha. As an example ... the Dirac theory predicts a magnetic moment of mu = mu[zero] for the electron, whereas a more complete treatment [including Schwinger's coupling correction, i.e., the first Feynman diagram] of radiative effects gives mu = mu[zero].(1 + alpha/{twice Pi}), which agrees very well with the very accurate measured value of mu/mu[zero] = 1.001...'

Is there charge in empty space? QFT is not very lucid on this. Whereas Dirac said the vacuum is full of virtual charge, and used this to predict antimatter, which was then detected by Anderson in 1932 (resulting in a Nobel Prize for Dirac), there is the issue that a vacuum completely full of charge would polarize around real charge, cancelling it completely.

Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga showed that the vacuum is not full of free charge or it would cancel out real charges by becoming totally polarized. Instead, there is a limit or cutoff to the amount of polarization, at a collision energy which corresponds to a very small distance from the middle of the electron. This comes from the need to renormalize the charge of the electron, in order to force the QFT to predict the electron's magnetic moment and Lamb shift accurately.

So free (polarizable) charge pairs can only exist close to the middle of the electron, where the electromagnetic field is strong enough, presumably, to break the bonds of the vacuum sea of charges, and free the charges so that they can then become polarized and cause the right amount of shielding for QFT to work. So from causality + QFT, the vacuum doesn't contain any free charge but must be full of bound charge which is broken up into free charge in the strong fields near a fundamental particle (real charge core).

There are virtual particles polarized in the strong field near real charge cores, and these must come from some mechanism. The strong field breaks up the orderly vacuum structure for a small distance, allowing it to become polarized which shields some of the real particle charge.

Quantum field theory implies the core of each real long-lived charge is surrounded by two concentric shells of charged vacuum particles: an inner shell with opposite charge to the core, and an outer one of similar charge to the core. The electric field arrow between the two shells points the other way to that for the charge from the core bare charge, so the latter is shielded. The shielding factor calculated in a previous post in this blog is approximately 137 or 1/alpha.

The physical reason why quarks have fractional charge can be explained very simply indeed. Electric charges are shielded by the polarized vacuum field they create at short distances. If you hypothetically put three electron charges close together so that they all share the same vacuum polarization cloud, the polarization in that cloud will be three times stronger. Hence, the shielding factor for electric charge will be three times greater. So the electric charge you would theoretically expect to get from each of the three electron-sized charges confined in close proximity is equal to: -1/3e. This is the electric charge of the downquark.

Renormalization is the failure to give a rigorous reason for the empirical need of the mathematical solution to have the right asymptotic limits. The abstract QFT (including not just electron-positron polarization, but all the loops of other charges up to 92 GeV) suggests the electron charge is approximately e + e[0.005 ln(A/E)], where A and E are respectively upper and lower cutoffs, which for a 92 GeV electron-electron collision are A = 92,000 MeV, and E = 0.511 MeV.

There are some severe problems in quantum field theory pertaining to the discontinuity introduced by the cutoff needed to prevent the electric charge of a single electron from setting off an infinitely extensive polarization of the vacuum of the universe which entirely cancels the electron's electric charge. This renormalization problem is mentioned in the Dirac and Feynman quotes on http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/qft/. Ultimately these problems stem to the use of statistical equations (the wavefunction in the Schroedinger equation and Dirac equation doesn't tell you detailed facts, just averaged statistics) to obtain detailed facts which they are incapable of doing. Quantum mechanics for example is compatible with the exponential decay law of radioactivity. In reality, radioactivity decays in steps due to individual decay events, and it is only the averaged overall decay rate which approximates the exponential decay curve.

Considering the log(E/A) type term, on the one hand it could be that the log(E/A) type term may be right after all, if some mechanism can be found for the lower cutoff discontinuity. This low energy cutoff implies - if correct - that vacuum polarization only begins at a certain distance from the middle of the electron, where the electromagnetic field has just enough energy, to create electron-positron pairs in the vacuum which get polarized by the field and shield the electron charge. If this is the case, then the vacuum presumably does not contain any

*electron-positron pairs beyond that distance from an electron. The electric field of the electron (as mediated by gauge bosons obeying the inverse-square law) is intense enough vey near the electron core to both create free electrons from the vacuum and to polarize them.*

**free**If the issue were merely polarizing already-free virtual charges of the vacuum, no real (long lived) electrons would have any measurable electric charge at all, because the vacuum polarization would extend for infinity and would cancel out precisely 100% of the electric field from the electron, instead of the 100(1 - alpha) = 99.27%. There is a hell of a lot of difference between 100% and 99.27% shielding; the first would prevent any long range electric field at all, while the second is the observed shielding which allows a small fraction of the electron's charge to go uncancelled. The task of explaining renormalization is that of explaining why this difference exists.

However, the log(E/A) type term is definitely wrong for another reason: the upper energy limit E allows the term to increase toward infinity as distance from the middle of the electron decreases towards zero. Because the vacuum polarization over a finite distance cannot have infinite shielding, this is clearly false. The bare core charge of an electron is not infinite, but ~137e- as demonstrated above.

If we take the standard QFT electron charge formula to be e(x)/e(x = infinity) ~ 1 + [0.005 ln(A/E)], with E = 0.511 MeV and A the upper cutoff energy which is roughly inversely proportional to distance, we can roughly approximate the way the electron charge is supposed to vary as a function of distance from the middle of the electron.

For a 0.511 MeV electron-electron head on collision, the distance of closest approach is given by equating the entire kinetic energy of the moving electron to the potential energy of the electric field, (e-)^2 /(4.Pi.permittivity.distance of closest approach).

Obviously as energy increases beyond 0.511 MeV, the effective value of the electric charge (e-) decreases because there's less polarized vacuum causing electric field shielding between the two charges, and of course there can be energy losses due to elastic scatter effects (such as gamma ray emissions).However, I'll do some calculations. In the meanwhile, just take the standard formula of the type e(x)/e(x = infinity) ~ 1 + [0.005 ln(A/E)]. If as a rough approximation you put 1/(scaled distance) for A, you might expect to get a feel for how the charge is supposed to vary with distance. It is very unnatural. Normally you get a natural logarithm in rearranging an exponential equation (finding the inverse function), so you would not mathematically expect that an exponential equation would usefully approximate a logarithmic one. However, you would expect that physically a vacuum polarization shielding should have some type of exponential term.It is possible that the detailed dynamics of scattering effects like , in determining the relationship between collision energy and distance from middle of particle, make the correct relationship substantially different (from the simplistic low energy result that energy is proportional to 1/distance of closest approach).

One last piece of evidence: increasing energy means getting closer to a particle core (harder collisions, closer approaches). Under supersymmetry (SUSY) ideas, unification of strong and electroweak is supposed to occur at extremely high energy of 10^16 GeV. If this happens, it means that all forces are equal and different aspects of the same thing at a very close distance. Physically, that distance implies being so close to the particle core that there is NO intervening vacuum charge polarization (shielding) a all. Therefore, an electron at very close distances would show nuclear force effects. Hence, if supersymmetric unification ideas have any validity at all, they suggest that the role of the vacuum that I've been describing for electromagnetism, is the mechanism for the difference between electron and quark.

Now, remember, the range of the virtual charges in the vacuum is big enough to knock and deflect the electron randomly as the electron moves in the vacuum: Heisenberg's law says product of energy of virtual particles and the time they exist is h over 2 Pi or whatever, hence by rearranging and putting in the energy for an electron-positron pair, you get the time they exist, 10^-21 second; assuming as an exaggeration they go at speed c, this gives you a maximum range of virtual particles in the vacuum of ct = 10^-12 metre. I don't know that electron-positron pairs predominate in the vacuum, because that depends on the energy density of the vacuum which is not clearly known (John Baez shows that equally defensible estimates ranging from zero to[ward] infinity exist).

The higher the energy density of the vacuum, the heavier the virtual particles. However, from the unification arguments above, electrons and quarks are related: quarks are pairs or triads of electrons bound and trapped by the short range vacuum attraction effect, and because quarks are close enough to share the same polarization shells, the latter are 2 or 3 times stronger in pairs or triads of quarks, creating apparent fractional electric charges (stronger polarization type shielding causes weaker observed charge at a long distance).

The increase in the magnetic moment which results for leptons is reduced by the 1/alpha or 137 factor due to shielding from the virtual positron's own polarization zone, and is also reduced by a factor of 2Pi because the two particles are aligned with opposite spins: the force gauge bosons being exchanged between them hit the spinning particles on the edges, which have a side-on length which is 2Pi times smaller than the full circumference of the particle. To give a real world example, it is well known that by merely spinning a missile about its axis you reduce the exposure of the skin of the missile to weapons by a factor of Pi. This is because the exposure is measured in energy deposit per unit area, and this exposed area is obviously decreased by a factor of Pi if the missile is spinning quickly. For an electron, the spin is half integer, so like a Mobius strip (paper loop with half a turn), you have to rotate 720 degrees (not 360) to complete a 'rotation' back to the starting point. Therefore the effective exposure reduction for a spinning electron is 2Pi, rather than Pi.

Hence by combining the polarization shielding factor with the spin coupling factor, we can account for the fact that the lepton magnetic moment increase due to this effect is approximately 1/(2.Pi x 137) = alpha/(2.Pi) added on to the 1 Bohr magneton of the bare real electron. This gives the 1.0116 Bohr magnetons result for leptons.

We can make additional predictions using the Z boson of electroweak theory, which is unique because it has rest mass despite being an uncharged fundamental particle! You can easily see how charged particles acquire mass (by attracting a cloud of vacuum charges, which mire them, creating inertia and a response to the spacetime fabric background field which is gravity). But how does a non-composite neutral particle, the Z, acquire mass? This is essentially the question of electroweak symmetry breaking at low energy. The Z is related to the photon, but is different in that it has rest mass and therefore has a limited range, at least below electroweak symmetry breaking energy.

Z mass model: a vacuum particle with the mass of the electroweak neutral gauge boson (Z) semi-empirically predicts all the masses in the Standard Model. You use data for a few particles to formulate the model, but then it predicts everything else, including making many extra checkable predictions! Here's how. If the particle is at position A in the model illustration, it is inside the polarization range of the electron, but there is still its own polarization shell separating it from the real electron core. Because of the shielding of its own shell of vacuum polarization and from the spin of the electron core, the mass it gives the core is equal to

M(z)/(2.Pi x 137) = M(z)alpha/(2.Pi) ~ 105.7 MeV.

**Hence the muon!**

Next, consider the lower energy state where the mass is at position B in the diagram above. In that case, the coupling between the central core charge and the mass at B is reduced by the additional distance (which empirically is a factor of ~1.5 reduction) and also the 137 or 1/alpha polarization attenuation factor. Hence

M(z).(alpha)^2 /(1.5 x 2.Pi) ~ 0.51 MeV.

**Hence the electron!**

**Generalizing,**for n real charge cores (such as a bare lepton or 2-3 bare quarks), and N masses of Z boson mass at position A (a high energy, high mass state), the formula for predicting the observable mass of the leptons or hadrons is:

M(e).n(N+1)/(2.alpha) = M(z).n(N+1)(alpha)/(6.Pi).

This does make predictions! It is based on known facts of polarization in the vacuum, the details of which have evidence from many experiments. It has more physics and checkable tests going for it than the periodic table of chemistry had first proposed from sheer empirical association by Newlands and Mendeleev, which today would doubtless be suppressed sneeringly as 'numerology' (the reason for the periodic table had to await the discovery of quantum mechanics). It produces a kind of periodic table of elementary particle masses which are directly comparable to measured data. This fact-guided methodology of doing physics is in stark contrast to stringy, abject, useless extra dimensional speculation.

The stringy model doesn't predict the force mechanisms, strengths, particle masses, and cosmological results which it suppressed with censorship.

But for a comparison of the above heuristic ideas with those quantum field theory between the Tomonaga-Feynman-Schwinger quantum field theory renormalized calculation of the magnetic field increase for an electron due to the vacuum (which Dirac and Feynman, as well as others like Dr Chris Oakley, raise objects to on mathematical grounds, as being incomplete/fiddled) see:

Julian Schwinger, On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polarization, Phys. Rev. vo. 82 (1951), p. 664:

'This paper is based on the elementary remark that the extraction of gauge invariant results from a formally gauge invariant theory is ensured if one employs methods of solution that involve only gauge covariant quantities. We illustrate this statement in connection with the problem of vacuum polarization by a prescribed electromagnetic field. The vacuum current of a charged Dirac field, which can be expressed in terms of the Green's function of that field, implies an addition to the action integral of the electromagnetic field. Now these quantities can be related to the dynamical properties of a "particle" with space-time coordinates that depend upon a proper-time parameter. The proper-time equations of motion involve only electromagnetic field strengths, and provide a suitable gauge invariant basis for treating problems. Rigorous solutions of the equations of motion can be obtained for a constant field, and for a plane wave field. A renormalization of field strength and charge, applied to the modified lagrange function for constant fields, yields a finite, gauge invariant result which implies nonlinear properties for the electromagnetic field in the vacuum. The contribution of a zero spin charged field is also stated. After the same field strength renormalization, the modified physical quantities describing a plane wave in the vacuum reduce to just those of the maxwell field; there are no nonlinear phenomena for a single plane wave, of arbitrary strength and spectral composition. The results obtained for constant (that is, slowly varying fields), are then applied to treat the two-photon disintegration of a spin zero neutral meson arising from the polarization of the proton vacuum. We obtain approximate, gauge invariant expressions for the effective interaction between the meson and the electromagnetic field, in which the nuclear coupling may be scalar, pseudoscalar, or pseudovector in nature. The direct verification of equivalence between the pseudoscalar and pseudovector interactions only requires a proper statement of the limiting processes involved. For arbitrarily varying fields, perturbation methods can be applied to the equations of motion, as discussed in Appendix A, or one can employ an expansion in powers of the potential vector. The latter automatically yields gauge invariant results, provided only that the proper-time integration is reserved to the last. This indicates that the significant aspect of the proper-time method is its isolation of divergences in integrals with respect to the proper-time parameter, which is independent of the coordinate system and of the gauge. The connection between the proper-time method and the technique of "invariant regularization" is discussed. Incidentally, the probability of actual pair creation is obtained from the imaginary part of the electromagnetic field action integral. Finally, as an application of the Green's function for a constant field, we construct the mass operator of an electron in a weak, homogeneous external field, and derive the additional spin magnetic moment of α/2π magnetons by means of a perturbation calculation in which proper-mass plays the customary role of energy.'

More information on QFT: see Prof. Mark Srednicki's textbook at http://gabriel.physics.ucsb.edu/~mark/MS-QFT-11Feb06.pdf and the corrected Prof. Alvarez-Gaume introduction at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0510/0510040.pdf (It turns out that that textbook (1st ed) was wrong as it ignored all the particle creation-annihilation loops which can be created at energies between 0.511 MeV and 92 GeV. Motl emailed the Professor then replied: "Prof. Alvarez-Gaume has written me that it was a pedagogical simplification, which I fully understand and endorse, and in a future version of the text, they will have not only the right numbers but even the threshold corrections!" The second edition corrects the error, with a footnote thanking Motl, who I had informed of the error since I don't get replies from most professors when using hotmail.)

Kind regards,

nigel

Copy of a comment submitted to Cosmic Variance blog in case deleted:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/07/23/n-bodies/

nigel cook on Jul 24th, 2006 at 4:07 am

‘… the ‘inexorable laws of physics’ … were never really there … Newton could not predict the behaviour of three balls … In retrospect we can see that the determinism of pre-quantum physics kept itself from ideological bankruptcy only by keeping the three balls of the pawnbroker apart.’ – Tim Poston and Ian Stewart,

*Analog,*November 1981.

It isn’t quantum physics that is the oddity, but actually classical physics! The normal teaching of Newtonian physics (at least at low levels) falsely claims/indoctrinates the persistent lie that it allows the positions of the planets to be exactly calculated (determinism) when it does not if you have 3+ bodies, which you do. Richard P. Feynman conceded this in his book

*QED:*

‘when the space through which a photon moves becomes too small (such as the tiny holes in the screen) … we discover that … there are interferences created by the two holes, and so on. The same situation exists with electrons: when seen on a large scale, they travel like particles, on definite paths. But on a small scale,

**such as inside an atom, the space is so small**that … interference becomes very important.’

The interference is due to many vacuum virtual charges:

‘All charges are surrounded by clouds of virtual photons, which spend part of their existence dissociated into fermion-antifermion pairs.’ – I. Levine, D. Koltick, et al.,

*Physical Review Letters,*v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424.

The duration and maximum range of these charges is easily estimated: take the energy-time form of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and put in the energy of an electron-positron pair and you find it can exist for ~10^-21 second; the maximum possible range is therefore this time multiplied by c, or 10^-12 metre. This is far enough to deflect electrons but not enough to be observed as vacuum radioactivity. Like Brownian motion, it introduces chaos on small scales, not large ones:

‘… the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical scatter relations, as I proposed [in the 1934 book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’]. … There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either Heisenberg’s or Bohr’s subjectivist interpretation …’ – Sir Karl R. Popper,

*Objective Knowledge,*Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303.

The Schroedinger wave equation arises naturally from a sea of particles because we know that you get waves in particle-based fluids: http://feynman137.tripod.com/#b

## 17 Comments:

From: Nigel Cook

To: Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; epola@tiscali.co.uk ; Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:59 AM

Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Above: mechanism of attraction and repulsion in electromagnetism, and the capacitor summation of displacement current energy flowing between accelerating (spinning) charges as gauge bosons (by analogy to Prevost’s 1792 model of constant temperature as a radiation equilibrium). The net exchange is like two machine gunners firing bullets at each other; they recoil apart. The gauge bosons pushing them together are redshifted, like nearly spent bullets coming from a great distance, and are not enough to prevent repulsion. In the case of attraction, the same principle applies. The two opposite charges shield one another and get pushed together. Although each charge is radiating and receiving energy on the outer sides, the inward push is from redshifted gauge bosons, and the emission is not redshifted. The result is just like two people, standing back to back, firing machine guns. The recoil pushes them together, hence the attraction force.

Heuristically, gauge boson (virtual photon) transfer between charges to cause electromagnetic forces, and those gauge bosons don’t discriminate against charges in neutral groups like atoms and neutrons. The Feynman diagrams show no way for the gauge bosons/virtual photons to stop interactions. Light then arises when the normal exchange of gauge bosons is upset from its equilibrium. You can test this heuristic model in some ways. First, most gauge bosons are going to be exchanged in a random way between charges, which means the simple electric analogue is a series of randomly connected charged capacitors (positive and negative charges, with vacuum 377-ohm dielectric between the ‘plates’). Statistically, if you connect an even number of charged capacitors in random along a line across the universe, the sum will be on average be zero. But if you have an odd number, you get an average of 1 capacitor unit. On average any line across the universe will be as likely to have an even as an odd number of charges, so the average charge sum will be the mean, (0 +1)/2 = 1/2 capacitor. This is weak and always attractive, because there is no force at all in the sum = 0 case and attractive force (between oppositely charged capacitor plates) in the sum = 1 case. Because it is weak and always attractive, it's gravitation? The other way they charges can add is in a perfect summation where every charge in the universe appears in the series + - + -, etc. This looks improbable, but is statistically a drunkard's walk, and by the nature of path-integrals gauge bosons do take every possible route, so it WILL happen. When capacitors are arranged like this, the potential adds like a statistical drunkard's walk because of the random orientation of ‘capacitors’, the diffusion weakening the summation from the total number to just the square root of that number because of the angular variations (two steps in opposite directions cancel out, as does the voltage from two charged capacitors facing one another). This vector sum of a drunkard's walk is the average step times the square root of the number of steps, so for ~1080 charges, you get a resultant of ~1040. The ratio of electromagnetism to gravity is then (~1040) /(1/2). Notice that this model shows gravity is electromagnetism, caused by gauge bosons. It does away with gravitons. The distances between the charges are ignored. This is explained because on average half the gauge bosons will be going away from the observer, and half will be approaching the observer. The fall due to the spread over larger areas with divergence is offset by the concentration due to convergence.

ALL electrons are emitting, so all are receiving. Hence they don't slow, they just get juggled around and obey the chaotic Schrodinger wave formula instead of a classical Bohr orbit.

‘Arguments’ against the facts of emission without net energy loss also ‘disprove’ real heat theory. According to the false claim that radiation leads to net energy loss,

because everything is emitted heat radiation (separately from force causing radiation), everything should quickly cool to absolute zero. This is wrong for the same reason above: if everything is emitting heat, you can have equilibrium, constant temperature.

The equation is identical to Coulomb's law except that it expresses the

force in terms of different measurables. This allows it to predict the

permittivity of free space, the electric constant in Coulomb's law. So it

is a correct, predictive scientific mechanism.

The concepts of "electric charge" and "electric field" are useful words but

are physically abstract, not directly observable: you measure "them"

indirectly by the forces they produce, and you assume that because the mass

of the electron is quantized and the charge/mass ratio only varies with the

velocity of the electron by Lorentz/Einstein's law, charge is fundamental.

Really, energy is fundamental and the amount of "electric charge" you see

depends on how much attenuation there is by the polarised vacuum, the

observed (attenuated) charge falling by 7% at 90 GeV collisions (Koltick,

PRL, 1997), and mass varies because it is due to the surrounding The forces

are actually caused by vector radiation exchange. This is established by

quantum field theory.

If you have a series of parallel capacitor plates with different

charges, each separated by a vacuum dielectric, you need the total (net)

voltage needs to take into account the orientation of the plates.

The vector sum is the same as a statistical random walk (drunkard's walk):

the total is equal to the average voltage between a pair of plates,

multiplied by the square root of the total number (this allows for the

angular geometry dispersion, not distance, because the universe is

spherically symmetrical around us - thank God for keeping the calculation

very simple! - and there is as much dispersion outward in the random walk as

there is inward, so the effects of inverse square law dispersions and

concentrations with distance both exactly cancel out).

Gravity is the force that comes from a straight-line sum, which is the only

other option than the random walk. In a straight line, the sum of charges

is zero along any vector across the universe, if that line contains an

average equal number of positive and negative charges. However, it is

equally likely that the straight radial line drawn at random across the

universe contains an odd number of charges, in which case the average charge

is 2 units (2 units is equal to the difference between 1 negative charge and

1 positive charge). Therefore the straight line sum has two options only,

each with 50% probability: even number of charges and hence zero net result,

and odd number of charges which gives 2 unit charges as the net sum. The

mean for the two options is simply (0 + 2) /2 = 1 unit. Hence

electromagnetism is the square root of the number of charges in the

universe, times the weak option force (gravity).

Thus, electromagnetism and gravity are different ways that charges add up.

ABOVE IS FROM http://feynman137.tripod.com/

STUFF BELOW IS FROM http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/

Dr Woit concludes his book Not Even Wrong with a call for new symmetry principles to develop the standard model, explaining it and solving the problem of quantum gravity. Light has zero mass, but it delivers momentum of p = (energy)/c. Why not accept the simple symmetries that explain the verified facts of quantum field theory and of general relativity?

Yang-Mills (standard model) force-causing exchange radiation seen in the context of loop quantum gravity is the loop of energy exchange from any given mass to any other: these closed loops predict definite facts like conservation of gauge boson energy. At cosmological-sized distances, redshift of such exchange radiation weakens gravity, preventing retardation of the recession of distant supernovae.

Why don't people want to know the gravity mechanism? Why invent false snubs of the mechanism?

Yang-Mills models of the forces are literally correct. Prof. Smolin's work on loop quantum gravity (a low-dimensional, empirical type, largely ignored alternative to string theory) can be understood to say that Yang-Mills (standard model) particle physics are unified with general relativity when there are closed loops of energy exchange between masses. These closed loops mean that the energy being exchanged is constant. Hence, if masses recede from each other, the energy is redshifted which they receive from each other, etc.

I've explained this simple mechanism once. But I'll try reformulating my answer to be 100% clear. There are two types of electric charge. Forces result from shielding of exchange radiation (predicting the "attraction" force accurately) and a more complex situation where two charges are the same and so exchange radiation with each other. The exchanged radiation between two charges say 1 m apart is not redshifted (weakened), but the exchange radiation from the surrounding universe is redshifted (substantially) substantially. This mechanism for similar charges predicts a mutual recoil ("repulsion") force of the right size.For the simple shielding mechanism (attraction force), the cross-sectional shield area is that of the event horizon of a black hole, which is the same for gravity. The increased strength of electromagnetism over gravity comes from the addition of similar charges in the universe by random-walk statistics as compared to straight line averages, as I've shown. Just to be clear:

(1) Opposite charges (negative and positive) shield each other 100%, and so get pushed together (attraction). The opposite charges produce a net field because the sum of charges is zero (equal positive and negative charges produce zero total charge). Hence, they cannot sustain any trapped Catt type energy current between them (any net static charge implies a trapped light speed energy current, such as the gauge boson radiation in the vacuum between two protons). Since opposite charges (net electric charge of zero) are therefore NOT exchanging energy, they are not recoiling apart. Hence the only net force is the inward force from outside, pushing them together. So opposite charges "attract".

(2) Two like charges also shield one another 100%. However they recoil apart ("repel"), because they also exchange non-redshifted (non-weakened) radiation with one another (the electric field from two electrons adds up, implying trapped light speed energy current evidence from Catt's experiments on capacitor charging and discharging via sampling oscilloscopes). Hence for similar charges, the inward (redshifted) push is smaller than the mutual recoil from the exchange of radiation between simiar charges (Catt's so-called "contrapuntal TEM wave/trapped c-speed Heaviside energy current", or quantum field theorist's "Yang-Mills gauge boson exchange radiation"; use whichever description you prefer according to your taste, physically it is precisely the same stuff). I've explained previously how CERN in 1983 discovered the electroweak gauge boson exchange radiations with the masses predicted based onYang-Mills quantum field theory (the standard model, which also predicts thousands of particle physics reaction rates to within 0.1%, and electrodynamics to far greater accuracy. It is far better tested than any other theory). Light delivers momentum as it carries energy. This is experimentally confirmed fact. The momentum of light is simply p = (energy)/c.

The age of the universe is 1/H, where H is Hubble's parameter given by the recession equation v = Hr or H = v/r, where v is recession velocity and r is radial apparent distance from us. Friedmann's solution to general relativity for the critical density and ignoring a cosmological constant is that the universe expands as the 2/3 power of time after big bang, which (after some calculation) implies an age for the universe of (2/3)/H. However, the 1998 results show that the universe is not being slowed by gravity, in other words it is expanding as the Hubble law without any slowing down. The official "explanation" is a small positive value of the cosmological constant (Lambda) in the general relativity Lambda-CDM (Cold Dark Matter) model, which is a ******* ***. I explained in an 8 page paper (available via Electronics World, Oct 96, letters pages), that gravity is a reaction to expansion and this implies there is no gravitational retardation at the greatest distances from us in spacetime.

There are several ways to get the last result....

Trapped light speed Heaviside/TEM energy current constitutes charge, because the electric field add up without cancellation from the

trapped/reciprocating Heaviside/Poynting energy flows in equilibrium (with similar flows of

energy back and forth in each possible direction, or around in a loop), while the magnetic field curls do cancel out exactly, apart from the magnetic dipole you get if an energy current flows around in a loop (electrons have a magnetic dipole moment of ~1 Bohr magneton).

Catt's confusion over whether electrons exist mean that nobody need pay attention to him. My success in disproving Ivor Catt's confused hogwash at http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html shows how he responds to progress: he ignores it. He isn't interested in progress. Really, the TEM wave to Ivor is what extra dimensions are to string theorists: a snub to reality. This is why Ivor persists in not comprehending advance.

It is very sad.

NC

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com

To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com; Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 9:18 PM

Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride and Magnetic Spin Moment

Dear David,

The magnetic field from an electron is actually a lot stronger than the

Coulomb force: both result from the electron core and the Poynting

relationship for the trapped energy current which is the electron core is

electric field E = cB volts/metre where B is magnetic field, so near the

electron core on polar locations where the magnetic field lines don't cancel

each other the magnetic field is exactly B = E/c Teslas, but the polarized

vacuum around the core results in virtual positrons being closer to the core

than virtual electrons, so there is a radial outward-pointing E-field arrow

from polarized vacuum which opposes the inward pointing E-field arrow from

the negative real electron core.

The two electric fields cancel 99.27 % of the charge, the % being 100(1 -

alpha) where alpha is the shielding factor reducing the QED force law to the

empirical Coulomb law. (See my recent email to Prof. Post).

The magnetic field lines are not attenuated at all since they are radial at

the poles where they leave the electron core, and so are parallel to the

electric field lines. There is no magnetic dipole shielding. The only

effect of the polarization on the magnetic moment is indirect: the vacuum

addition would be an increase in the magnetic moment of the electron by a

factor like 1/(twice pi) in the absence of polarization. The shielding of

the electric field reduces the number of free virtual electrons able to be

contribute to the magnetic moment of the electron by a factor of alpha,

1/137. (see recent email of mine to Prof Post.)

Kind regards,

nigel

----- Original Message -----

From: "David Tombe" ...

Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 6:07 PM

Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride and Magnetic Spin Moment

> Dear Nigel,

> In your letter below, magnetic spin moment appears to be

> used as something to override the supposed Coulomb force of repulsion

> between electrons.

>

> Guy uses the magnetic spin moment to override the Coulomb

> law of attraction in an otherwise potentially collapsing epola.

>

> A third man on a separate thread uses magnetic spin moment

> to override the supposed Coulomb law of repulsion in Cooper pairs.

>

> Yet anything that I have read about the magnetic spin

> moment of an electron would suggest that it is alot weaker than the

> Coulomb force. It strikes me that people get too handy about reaching for

> the magnetic spin moment as soon as they see their theories under threat

> from the Coulomb force.

>

> Do you envisage magnetic spin moment, such as that the

> electron becomes a bar magnetic surrounded by a magnetic field?

>

> Yours sincerely

> David Tombe

>

> ----Original Message Follows----

> From: "Nigel Cook" ...

> Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride

> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:28:41 +0100

>

> Dear David,

>

> You are now getting to the root of the situation: magnetism. It isn't

> electrostatic forces which control chemistry, it is the "Pauli exclusion

> principle" which being merely a principle needs a mechanism. The key

> assertion of the exclusion principle for physics is that in any adjacent

> pair of electrons, the spins are opposite. Since spins are linked to

> magnetic moments in QED, this suggests that the periodic table and all

> bonding arrangements are based on magnetic repulsion/attraction in

> addition to the electric Coulomb forces. The "Pauli exclusion principle"

> just says that the four quantum numbers of any electron (describing shell,

> its shape, etc, as well as spin) are a unique set for each electron in an

> atom. So far as shell number goes, this is just stating that the electron

> is not in two shells at once, which is just a statement that the electron

> behaves classical law not indeterminacy horseshit (I'm not in two rooms at

> once). The Pauli exclusion principle is insightful in saying that adjacent

> electrons always have opposite spins: this is why most materials are

> non-magnetic seen from a large distance, the magnetic moments of the

> electrons cancel one another out. But at short range, there are magnetic

> forces which are important for determining atomic stucture and chemical

> bonding.

>

> These are always referred to as "Pauli exclusion principle" instead of the

> more candid term "magnetic force". See:

>

> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pauli.html#c2 (which is a

> horseshit description)

>

> and

>

> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/nacl.html (which at

> least has a graph)

>

> Consider H-H bonding. Why should two hydrogen atoms bond together to form

> H_2?

>

> The H_2 molecule is in a lower energy state than 2H. The two shared

> electrons pair with opposite spins (one up, one down). If you drop

> magnets in a box and shake it up, they end up side by side, north pole of

> one beside south pole of the other, and vice versa. This is the lowest

> energy state, which occurs naturally.

>

> Best wishes,

> nigel

>

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tombe" ...

> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 12:00 AM

> Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride

>

>

>>Dear Nigel,

>> So the donated electron spends more time over near the other

>> ion. Presumably it then attracts its original atom (now a positive ion)

>> over towards the other ion.

>>

>> But why does the donated electron spend more time over at

>> the other ion? What's wrong with spending more time at its own ion? Why

>> do the other ions' electrons not gang up and blow it away?

>>

>> So far, I have not been convinced of a single reason why

>> the two atoms should bond together.

>>

>> Yours sincerely

>> David Tombe

>>

>>----Original Message Follows----

>>From: "Nigel Cook" ...

>>Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride

>>Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:07:43 +0100

>>

>>In an ionic bond, the electron spends more of its time near the other ion.

>>The electron is still mediating between the two ions. You seem to be

>>thinking of a classical picture of chemical bonds with electrons fixed in

>>a position in space, which is taught in chemistry up to age 16. At

>>A-level, it is taught that an electron has some chance of being found at a

>>great range of locations, and the classical picture at best just indicates

>>where it is most probably to find it.

>>

>>"Most probable" is misleading if a large number of locations have equal

>>or nearly equal probability, producing the electron "cloud".

>>

>>Quantum mechanics doesn't even estimate the statistical probability of

>>finding an electron at a given location directly when you have anything

>>more complex than a H atom in an empty universe. At least in that case,

>>QM allows you to predict probabilities of finding the electron at

>>different locations. All multi electron atoms are beyond quantum

>>mechanics and can only be solved by introducing approximations and

>>simplifying assumptions which make the situation into a "corrected"

>>version of the H atom.

>>

>>You can't trust any claims made by quantum mechanics gurus who wave their

>>arms around, Feynman was right to say denounce it.

>>

>>Feynman says, in his book Character of Physical Law, page 57-8 (1964

>>Cornell lectures, broadcast on BBC2 in 1965):

>>

>>"It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them

>>today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical

>>operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of

>>space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going

>>on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to

>>figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have

>>often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a

>>mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed,

>>and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all

>>its apparent complexities."

>>

>>Feynman said, in Character of Physical Law, pp. 171-3:

>>

>>"The inexperienced, and crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that

>>are simple, but [with extensive knowledge of the actual facts rather than

>>speculative theories of physics] you can immediately see that they are

>>wrong, so that does not count. ... There will be a degeneration of ideas,

>>just like the degeneration that great explorers feel is occurring when

>>tourists begin moving i on a territory."

>>

>>

>>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tombe" ...

>>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:32 PM

>>Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride

>>

>>

>>>Dear Nigel,

>>> Well if that is so, what is the basis of the ionic bond?

>>> Yours sincerely

>>> David Tombe

>>>

>>>----Original Message Follows----

>>>From: "Nigel Cook" ...

>>>Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride

>>>Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:22:21 +0100

>>>

>>>It does, electrons aren't stationary, they are in motion (vibration) all

>>>the time, back and forward.

>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "David Tombe"

>>>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:08 PM

>>>Subject: Sodium Chloride

>>>

>>>

>>>>Dear Nigel,

>>>> You say that the electrons in the metal send your Beta

>>>> particles back again.

>>>>

>>>> Why is it then, that when a sodium atom gives its outer

>>>> electron to a Chlorine atom, that the Chlorine electrons don't send it

>>>> back again?

>>>>

>>>> Yours sincerely

>>>> David Tombe

>>>>

>>>>----Original Message Follows----

>>>>From: "Nigel Cook" ...

>>>>Subject: Re: Electrons Attract

>>>>Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:22:10 +0100

>>>>

>>>>Dear David,

>>>>

>>>>There is plenty of evidence that similar charges attract and unlike

>>>>charges repel. Use the Van de Graaff generator and cat's fur and charge

>>>>some helium balloons on insulating strings. They repel if charged

>>>>similarly; they attract if oppositely charged.

>>>>

>>>>If I hold my Sr-90 beta particle (electron) source near a piece of

>>>>metal, I get back-scatter. The electrons get scattered back, and I can

>>>>measure this as a massive increase in beta radiation coming the opposite

>>>>way. A fair fraction of beta particles are scattered back by the

>>>>electrons in metal. The only way this can occur is by repulsion between

>>>>electrons. It can't be a nuclear effect, as nuclei are positive.

>>>>

>>>>I find it sad that you are trying to modify the facts to justify absurd

>>>>predictions from a hydrodynamic model to reality, instead of trying to

>>>>fit the model to the facts.

>>>>

>>>>If you fit the model to the facts, it may help you predict other things,

>>>>which allow independent tests. It is true that two fluid whirlpools

>>>>will attract or repel depending on whether they have similar or opposite

>>>>spin. But there is plenty of evidence that there aren't big vortices or

>>>>inflows in the vacuum causing electromagnetism or gravity. I published

>>>>a fair amount on the hydrodynamics of the aether in Science World

>>>>magazine ISSN 1367-6172 from 1997-2001. There have been experimental

>>>>efforts made to try to see if magnetism etc are vortices in aether,

>>>>particularly by Larmor and Lodge (Larmor's book promoting the kind of

>>>>thing you are suggesting is "Aether and Matter" 1901; Lodge has a

>>>>summary of the experiments discrediting it in his book "My Philosophy"

>>>>1933). There is no significant motion of aether involved in

>>>>electromagnetism. They sent light along strong magnetic field lines,

>>>>and didn't find any change in light speed.

>>>>

>>>>Inflow theory is pertinent to a non-oscillating type radiation exchange.

>>>>

>>>>Its very hot and humid today in Colchester so I'm not going to argue

>>>>really. I don't really see what is the future holds for physics. I'm

>>>>going to write up my final paper on the subject as an introduction to

>>>>quantum field theory and general relativity written in the way I feel

>>>>fit, which is completely different to the way everyone else goes about

>>>>it (they are ignorant, obfuscating, non-listening, patronising and mad

>>>>Nazi-type stringy arrogant mathematicians). The sad thing for me is

>>>>that every time I think I've explained things clearly on my site and

>>>>blog, I look at them a few weeks later and see that it is disappointing.

>>>>It will take a lot of effort to get the facts convincingly presented

>>>>with impressive writing and illustrations.

>>>>

>>>>nigel

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tombe" ...

>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:25 PM

>>>>Subject: Re: Electrons Attract

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>Dear Nigel,

>>>>> The main point is 'Do we have definite evidence that

>>>>> electrons repel each other?'

>>>>>

>>>>> Electric field lines cross over between electrons and

>>>>> positrons. These field lines have got all the characteristics of

>>>>> radial fluid flow with the two particles being a source and a sink.

>>>>> Hydrodynamics can yield the fundamental forces.

>>>>>

>>>>> If an electron is a sink, then electrons cannot be

>>>>> mutually repulsive.

>>>>>

>>>>> Ok, so if an electron is not a sink, why do we have so

>>>>> many similarities between hydrodynaimcs and the fundamental forces?

>>>>>

>>>>> Is it just a big coincidence?

>>>>>

>>>>> How does ionic bonding work? How can a sodium atom

>>>>> donate an electron to a chlorine atom? Why is an electron so willing

>>>>> to go and sit amongst other electrons in the chlorine atom, when they

>>>>> should all repel it away?

>>>>> Yours sincerely

>>>>> David Tombe

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>----Original Message Follows----

>>>>>From: "Nigel Cook" ... >>>>>Subject: Re: Electrons Attract

>>>>>Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:56:11 +0100

>>>>>

>>>>>Dear David,

>>>>>

>>>>>You'r spacing assumption is bullshit. The electron current as I said is

>>>>>tiny and the speed of the electrons as you say can be a significant

>>>>>fraction of light speed.

>>>>>

>>>>>One amp is one coulomb/second being emitted by the hot cathode, i.e.,

>>>>>6.241 x 10^18 electrons being emitted by the cathode per second. For a

>>>>>focusable beam in a TV or CRT tube, the current is say 1 microamp, 6 x

>>>>>10^12 electrons/second. They travel 0.5 m from hot cathode to screen

>>>>>phosphor, going at let's say 1% of light speed. Hence each electron,

>>>>>going at 3,000,000 m/s, takes 0.5/3,000,000 = 1.67 x 10^-7 second to

>>>>>travel in the ray the 0.5 m distance. This means the separation of

>>>>>electrons in the beam. In this time the number of electrons located

>>>>>between the cathode and screen is (6 x 10^12 electrons/second) x (1.67

>>>>>x 10^-7 second) = 1,000,000 electrons. These electrons are spread over

>>>>>the 0.5 m distance from the cathode to the screen, so the number of

>>>>>electrons per metre length of beam is 2,000,000. Hence, each electron

>>>>>is spaced apart by a distance of 1/2,000,000 metres = 0.5 micrometre

>>>>>(0.5 micron).

>>>>>

>>>>>So you're way off in assuming the distance is a nanometre. It's

>>>>>obvious that because of the inverse square law, a factor of 500 error

>>>>>in your estimate makes the real force 500^2 or 250,000 times smaller

>>>>>than you calculate it. You're just way off. There is no significant

>>>>>Coulomb repulsion effect in a cathode beam used in TV because they use

>>>>>a low current and fast moving electrons. As I said before, when you

>>>>>try to put amps through using heavier charges like uranium ions (which

>>>>>move fas more slowly than electrons in the same field) as they did in

>>>>>1944, you DO get the kind of de-focussing due to repulsion you talk

>>>>>about. What you're doing here is inventing a mythical problem and

>>>>>claiming it is an anomaly, when it your sums are just plain wrong.

>>>>>Ivor Catt does the same thing, and won't listen.

>>>>>

>>>>>Kind regards,

>>>>>nigel

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tombe" ...

>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:39 PM

>>>>>Subject: Electrons Attract

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>Dear Nigel,

>>>>>> I don't know what the spacing is between electrons in

>>>>>> cathode rays. However it could be as small as femtometers. Let's be

>>>>>> very liberal and estimate it to be in nanometers.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Two electrons ,according to official theory should

>>>>>> experience a repulsive force given by Coulomb's law. The product of

>>>>>> the charges leads to a ten to the minus thirty eight factor. That is

>>>>>> indeed very small. In SI units we multiply this by 9 times ten to the

>>>>>> plus nine, for the 'one over four pi epsilon' factor. This gets us up

>>>>>> to ten to the minus twenty eight. The distance in nanometers

>>>>>> underneath gives us another eighteen, and hence we are up to ten to

>>>>>> the minus ten. Still very small. However, to get acceleration, we

>>>>>> have to divide this by ten to the minus thirty one for the electron

>>>>>> mass.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Suddenly we have a huge acceleration of ten to the plus

>>>>>> twenty one. This is a huge acceleration, as we might expect, because

>>>>>> the electrostatic force is a big one.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Now I read that cathode rays travel at about one tenth of

>>>>>> the speed of light. Let's say that they travel one foot (.3 meters)

>>>>>> from gun to screen. We are talking about a very small travel time of

>>>>>> ten to the minus seven.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Now I know we can't really use the standard equation

>>>>>> for constant acceleration, because we are of course dealing with a

>>>>>> variable acceleration. But just to get an order of magnitude, we will

>>>>>> use it nevertheless, but knock our acceleration down by a factor of

>>>>>> ten, to say only ten to the twenty.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Initial velocity zero, and S = 1/2atsquared

>>>>>>

>>>>>>We are talking about a lateral distance of ten to the plus six.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>In other words, even using very liberal estimates, we would expect the

>>>>>>beam to have diverged by about 1000 kilometres laterally by the time

>>>>>>it reaches the screen.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>But in practice, we see the beam converging, even after it has emerged

>>>>>>from the focusing anodes.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>I think there is no doubt about it that electrons attract. They repel

>>>>>>of course when they pass each other laterally in opposite directions.

>>>>>>This is due to the centrifugal force.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yours sincerely

>>>>>> David Tombe

>>>>>>

>>>>>>----Original Message Follows----

>>>>>>From: "Nigel Cook" ... >>>>>>Subject: Re: Newton's Gravity is a special case of Coulomb's

>>>>>>Electrostatics

>>>>>>Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:21:54 +0100

>>>>>>

>>>>>>"> The textbooks are not going to give me the answer to

>>>>>>why

>>>>>>>cathode rays converge after they are well outside the focusing

>>>>>>>anode."

>>>>>>

>>>>>>The electric field from each electron in a beam is pretty weak so they

>>>>>>don't repel much. Although electromagnetism is very strong (by a

>>>>>>factor of 10^40) compared to gravity for a pair of charges, ou need a

>>>>>>hell of a lot of charge before you get a significant electric field

>>>>>>that curves the path of electrons in a 50 cm long CRT type TV tube or

>>>>>>whatever. You have to quantify the problem, not make general remarks

>>>>>>like this. That is Catt's problem, he won't get a useful answer from

>>>>>>anybody because his "Catt Question" is not quantitative. All

>>>>>>physicists of significance today are applied mathematicians, so Catt's

>>>>>>non-quantitative question is viewed as ignorant drivel. If you fire

>>>>>>two bullets in the same direction, they don't significantly converge

>>>>>>with distance, despite gravity. The reason is that the force is too

>>>>>>weak to cause significant convergence within the parameters of the

>>>>>>situation, i.e., for the masses of bullets and for their range.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>If electrons in a beam have a range of several km, not a few tens of

>>>>>>cm, then there would be focussing problems due to repulsion.

>>>>>>Similarly, if the beam current was amps, not micro amps or milli amps,

>>>>>>then the charge would be strong enough per unit volume of the beam to

>>>>>>cause focussing issues. But then the screen would get extremely hot,

>>>>>>and you wouldn't be ble to watch it, it would be so bright. The TV

>>>>>>tube or CRT oscilloscope tube screen doesn't get the massive amount of

>>>>>>charge fired at it which would cause either focussing problems

>>>>>>(electron repulsions in the beam), or the associated problems of heat

>>>>>>and radiation produced with such a heavy current of electrons striking

>>>>>>the phosphor of the screen.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>To me it is pretty intuitively obvious because I know about beam

>>>>>>focussing issues. There isn't the current in the beam or the length

>>>>>>of the beam necessary to cause significant electron repulsion

>>>>>>problems. I suggest you read the section "Electromagnetic Separation"

>>>>>>in Professor Henry DeWolf Smyth's Manhattan Project report "Atomic

>>>>>>Energy for Military Purposes". This report was allegedly written by

>>>>>>Richard P. Feynman on behalf of Smyth. People like Lawrence spent

>>>>>>hundreds of millions of US dollars trying to separate U235 from U238

>>>>>>using a massive TV type vacuum tube. The idea is ionise uranium to

>>>>>>charged ions in a beam, and deflect the beam electromagnetically.

>>>>>>Because the mass of each isotope is slightly different, U235 will be

>>>>>>deflected more than U238, and everything should be easy. In fact they

>>>>>>found that the whole theory of this subject was totally horse*hit

>>>>>>(rubbish) when you spend hundreds of millions of dollars making the

>>>>>>equipment and then try to use it. First up, the massive version has

>>>>>>the charge de-focussing problem you are mentioning, simply because

>>>>>>charge repulsion becomes more important with heavier currents (they

>>>>>>were in a rush and wanted to use massive currents in the beam to make

>>>>>>the Hiroshima atom bomb with U235), and also gets worse because the

>>>>>>size of the beam becomes longer, which gives more time and distance

>>>>>>for de-focussing effects to exert themselves on the beam. (Then there

>>>>>>is the issue that the vacuum is never perfect, which again is trivial

>>>>>>in a small TV tube but becomes a nightmare when you scale the thing up

>>>>>>to massive dimensions to use as an industrial tool, etc, etc.)

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Kind regards,

>>>>>>nigel

>>>>>>

>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tombe" ...

>>>>>>Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 6:30 PM

>>>>>>Subject: Re: Newton's Gravity is a special case of Coulomb's

>>>>>>Electrostatics

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Dear Guy,

>>>>>>> The textbooks are not going to give me the answer to why

>>>>>>> cathode rays converge after they are well outside the focusing

>>>>>>> anode.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> As regards atomic bonding, I'm well aware of the textbook

>>>>>>> answers. The textbook answers are not satisfactory.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> As regards Benjamin Franklin, the source I read said

>>>>>>> that he never knew that negative charges repelled (The source itself

>>>>>>> was taking the establishment view that we now know that negative

>>>>>>> charges do repel). So where did you read that amendment to what I

>>>>>>> said? Ie. that 'Franklin knew that negative charges repelled, but

>>>>>>> had not expected it to be so'. You told me this.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> A negatively charged Earth would fully explain the

>>>>>>> Earth's magnetic field, in exactly the same manner as a wire

>>>>>>> current.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You have to take the electrostatic experiments which

>>>>>>> which claim to show negative charges repelling and re-investigate

>>>>>>> them to find out if they really are negative. I did read from a

>>>>>>> reliable source that they are not sure exactly what is going on in

>>>>>>> electrostatic experiments, and exactly what is being transferred

>>>>>>> between the materials.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If I'm wrong, then there is a big problem with inflow

>>>>>>> theory. Ie. we can't say that a positron is a source, and an

>>>>>>> electron is a sink, because two sinks shouldn't repel.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If that all falls through, then it opens up some more

>>>>>>> very difficult questions such as why does the Coriolis Force link up

>>>>>>> so perfectly with the F= vXB force in electromagnetism.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It may well be that I am wrong but these are legitimate

>>>>>>> questions which you haven't been able to satisfactorily answer.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Yours sincerely

>>>>>>> David Tombe

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>----Original Message Follows----

>>>>>>>From: "Guy Grantham" ... >>>>>>>Subject: Re: Newton's Gravity is a special case of Coulomb's

>>>>>>>Electrostatics

>>>>>>>Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:04:57 +0100

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Dear David

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Just study some general science and the answers to your naive

>>>>>>>questions will be resolved.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Shutting down for the week - unless I find an internet cafe.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Best regards, Guy

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tombe" ...

>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:15 AM

>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Newton's Gravity is a special case of Coulomb's

>>>>>>>Electrostatics

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Dear Guy,

>>>>>>>> If electrons repel each other under the Coulomb force,

>>>>>>>> then it would take alot more than a magnetic field in a television

>>>>>>>> set, to hold them together. A magnetic field only changes the

>>>>>>>> direction of moving electrons. It doesn't work against the Coulomb

>>>>>>>> force.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It's very naive to think that the focusing mechanism

>>>>>>>> in the cathode ray oscilliscope has got anything to do with

>>>>>>>> resisting the mutual repulsion of the electrons that would occur

>>>>>>>> under the Coulomb law.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Once again, you are pretending to know too much about

>>>>>>>> things which are quite simply not fully understood. I read a

>>>>>>>> website which says that they don't even know when you rub a comb on

>>>>>>>> your hair, what kind of particles are shifting about.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> And the facts are that negative charge attracts

>>>>>>>> neutral objects, but positive charge doesn't.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> There is far too much uncertainty surrounding

>>>>>>>> surface electrostatics for you to be able to proclaim for certain

>>>>>>>> that electrons repel each other.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Why do Cooper pairs form in super-conductors?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Yours sincerely

>>>>>>>> David Tombe

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>----Original Message Follows----

>>>>>>>>From: "Guy Grantham" ... >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Newton's Gravity is a special case of Coulomb's

>>>>>>>>Electrostatics

>>>>>>>>Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:43:15 +0100

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Dear David

>>>>>>>>Neutral atoms, like hydrogen, nitrogen, comfortably group due to

>>>>>>>>imbalance in their overall charge from their asymmetrical 'shape'.

>>>>>>>>'Attract' is overstating it, once satisfied the neutral group no

>>>>>>>>longer 'attracts'.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>The evidence in the examples you suggested for electrons being

>>>>>>>>mutually attractive was unsupportable. Electron beams do diverge, in

>>>>>>>>the TV you need a focussing magnetic field to keep them under

>>>>>>>>control. As for negative electrostatic charges being attracted to

>>>>>>>>earth, that constitutes a neutralising charge by local polarisation

>>>>>>>>or conduction to a neutralising charge.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Can you quote another who says that electrons exhibit mutual

>>>>>>>>attraction?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>In the 1937 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on electricity it

>>>>>>>>>>says

>>>>>>>>regarding Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) " - - - He supposed

>>>>>>>>therefore that

>>>>>>>>two vitreously electrified bodies would repel each other and that a

>>>>>>>>vitreously electrified body would attract a resinously electrified

>>>>>>>>body but

>>>>>>>>he did not expect two resinously electrified bodies to repel each

>>>>>>>>other - - "-[which they DID and still do].

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Franklin did not say that neg charge was attracting he only was

>>>>>>>>surprised to learn that both neg charge and pos charges (as we now

>>>>>>>>know them) were mutually repulsive to their own kind. He had guessed

>>>>>>>>that the attracting property would be the sole function of one kind

>>>>>>>>and repulsion of the other.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>When lightning strikes it pulls (induces) an upwards spark of pos

>>>>>>>>charge to the cloud, not as we perceive with spark coming all the

>>>>>>>>way down, until a polarised pathway has formed. Our eyes are not

>>>>>>>>responsive nor quick enough - and the bang makes us blink! See this

>>>>>>>>first return from Google search for 'lightning upwards' at

>>>>>>>>http://www.g6csy.net/lightning/index.html.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Best regards, Guy

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>ps - off to Devon tomorrow for the week so may have to pick up

>>>>>>>>thread on return.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tombe" ... >>>>>>>>Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 6:11 PM

>>>>>>>>Subject: Newton's Gravity is a special case of Coulomb's

>>>>>>>>Electrostatics

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>Dear Guy,

>>>>>>>>> Once again you have by-passed the main point. What is

>>>>>>>>> causing neutral atoms to attract each other? The standard

>>>>>>>>> explanations are conjuring tricks involving donated electrons,

>>>>>>>>> shared electrons, and dipoles.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> As for the gold leaf electroscope, I made that

>>>>>>>>> very point myself when I first put forward the idea that electrons

>>>>>>>>> attract each other. I said that there exists a number of

>>>>>>>>> electrostatic experiments which purport to show that electrons

>>>>>>>>> repel each other.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I pointed out that there are two sets of

>>>>>>>>> conflicting evidence on the matter. There exists evidence to

>>>>>>>>> suggest that electrons attract each other. It is pointless to

>>>>>>>>> refer me to the gold leaf electroscope and think that I am then

>>>>>>>>> going to have to disregard those other matters.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> The point that I was making was that both sets of

>>>>>>>>> evidence need to be carefully reviewed.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> In the gold leaf electroscope, when the

>>>>>>>>> leaves repel, are you one hundred percent sure that the leaves are

>>>>>>>>> negatively charged? How do you know that the negative rod didn't

>>>>>>>>> actually take the electrons out of the electroscope, rather than

>>>>>>>>> put new ones in?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Why would Benjamin Franklin have missed out on

>>>>>>>>> the idea that negative charge is mutually repulsive?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Yours sincerely

>>>>>>>>> David Tombe

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>----Original Message Follows----

>>>>>>>>>From: "Guy Grantham" ... >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Sodium and Chlorine should repel under textbook theory

>>>>>>>>>Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:15:05 +0100

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>Dear David

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>As you repeatedly point out, neutral atoms do repel enough to

>>>>>>>>>resist excessive compression, that is why they appear 'solid' when

>>>>>>>>>they are mainly comprised of space between electrons. You are able

>>>>>>>>>to stand on a platform because its atoms resist compression. When

>>>>>>>>>atomic (molecular) material is heavily compressed (in a diamond

>>>>>>>>>anvil) it does indeed shrink down further.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>Ions are caused to approach as closely as compressed-together

>>>>>>>>>neutral atoms because they are pulled together by their respective

>>>>>>>>>net charges. The electrons in ionic pairings get no closer than the

>>>>>>>>>electrons in a neutral atom!

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>Charge a gold leaf electroscope with electrons and the leaves repel

>>>>>>>>>each other. QED.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>Best regards, Guy

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tombe" ... >>>>>>>>>Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 9:36 PM

>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Sodium and Chlorine should repel under textbook theory

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>Dear Guy,

>>>>>>>>>> When a sodium comes up against a chlorine, the

>>>>>>>>>> orbital electrons most certainly come close to each other.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> If they are neutral atoms, the first effect felt

>>>>>>>>>> should be a repulsion, if electrons repel each other.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> If they are charged ions, the same should be the

>>>>>>>>>> case, especially as they come closer together. Even the donated

>>>>>>>>>> electron will repel its old colleagues as they come close.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> It has got nothing to do with density of the

>>>>>>>>>> electron clouds. It is the fact that the orbital electron clouds

>>>>>>>>>> should repel, but that they don't.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> It tends to suggest that electrons actually attract

>>>>>>>>>> each other.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>In a cloride ion, what allows the donated electron to attach

>>>>>>>>>>itself to an otherwise neutral chlorine atom? Here we have a

>>>>>>>>>>single electron coming over from a sodium atom and joining on

>>>>>>>>>>comfortably to a cloud of electrons in orbit around a chlorine

>>>>>>>>>>nucleus.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Yours sincerely

>>>>>>>>>> David Tombe

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>----Original Message Follows----

>>>>>>>>>>From: "Guy Grantham" ... >>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Sodium and Chlorine should repel under textbook

>>>>>>>>>>theory

>>>>>>>>>>Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:48:18 +0100

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>Dear David

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>The electrons do not 'come together'. With the spaciousness of

>>>>>>>>>>electrons clouds around the nuclei, electron density is no more

>>>>>>>>>>enhanced between a pair of ions than in an atom.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>Best regards, Guy

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tombe" ... >>>>>>>>>>Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:09 AM

>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Sodium and Chlorine should repel under textbook

>>>>>>>>>>theory

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>Dear Guy,

>>>>>>>>>>> That answer below was a total rubbish answer. It

>>>>>>>>>>> completely ignored the fact that the electrons come together

>>>>>>>>>>> first.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Yours sincerely

>>>>>>>>>>> David Tombe

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>----Original Message Follows----

>>>>>>>>>>>From: "Guy Grantham" ...

>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Sodium and Chlorine should repel under textbook

>>>>>>>>>>>theory

>>>>>>>>>>>Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:33:11 +0100

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>Dear David

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>The net charge in any localised space appears as if it originates

>>>>>>>>>>>from the

>>>>>>>>>>>centre. On the size scale of ions and spacing of their electrons

>>>>>>>>>>>this is exactly what happens. The individual

>>>>>>>>>>>voting power of an electron is overruled by the bulk of protons

>>>>>>>>>>>baying on each side of it!

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>Best regards, Guy

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tombe" ...

>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 9:47 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Sodium and Chlorine should repel under textbook theory

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear Nigel,

>>>>>>>>>>>> There's absolutely nothing that I can do to make

>>>>>>>>>>>> it easier to

>>>>>>>>>>>>understand. It's not the way I've explained it. The problem is

>>>>>>>>>>>>that I am

>>>>>>>>>>>>up against inbuilt prejudices, which mean that most people won't

>>>>>>>>>>>>even

>>>>>>>>>>>>bother to read it. And most people haven't got a clue about

>>>>>>>>>>>>orbital

>>>>>>>>>>>>dynamics. It's difficult enough to teach people orbital dynamics

>>>>>>>>>>>>at the

>>>>>>>>>>>>best of times. But it's even more difficult to teach people who

>>>>>>>>>>>>are

>>>>>>>>>>>>resisting and arguing about uncontroversial orbital theory,

>>>>>>>>>>>>because the

>>>>>>>>>>>>truth threatens their own pet theories. I've had quite a few

>>>>>>>>>>>>people over

>>>>>>>>>>>>the last 23 years, who simply haven't got the first clue about

>>>>>>>>>>>>orbital

>>>>>>>>>>>>dynamics, yet insist on arguing against with when I'm only

>>>>>>>>>>>>telling them

>>>>>>>>>>>>the standard facts. They do this because their own pet theories

>>>>>>>>>>>>never even

>>>>>>>>>>>>considered orbital dynamics in the first place, and they don't

>>>>>>>>>>>>want to

>>>>>>>>>>>>hear something that will prove their own theories wrong. So they

>>>>>>>>>>>>actually

>>>>>>>>>>>>argue with you about totally uncontroversial established

>>>>>>>>>>>>classical facts.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't got the facilities to do diagrams, but

>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree

>>>>>>>>>>>>that they would help. I'd like a computer graphic motion

>>>>>>>>>>>>animation of the

>>>>>>>>>>>>double helix idea.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> My biggest problem for twenty five years has been

>>>>>>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>>>>>>persuade people to separate the issues of,

>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) The aether and the fundamental forces,

>>>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) The electron positron medium and

>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic

>>>>>>>>>>>>radiation

>>>>>>>>>>>>They are two completly different topics, but they do of course

>>>>>>>>>>>>overlap.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> On your question about gravity being negative

>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity, yes of

>>>>>>>>>>>>course that should set alarm bells ringing. It sounds totally

>>>>>>>>>>>>ridiculous.

>>>>>>>>>>>>I've just had an argument tonight with a chemistry graduate

>>>>>>>>>>>>about it. Only

>>>>>>>>>>>>two weeks ago, I'd have pointed out that one was mutually

>>>>>>>>>>>>attractive,

>>>>>>>>>>>>while the other was mutually repulsive.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is substantial evidence to suggest that

>>>>>>>>>>>> the whole

>>>>>>>>>>>>issue needs reviewed.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>Why does a neutral chlorine atom bond with a neutral sodium atom

>>>>>>>>>>>>to form

>>>>>>>>>>>>salt? The standard theory says that first of all, the sodium

>>>>>>>>>>>>gives one of

>>>>>>>>>>>>its electrons to a chlorine and then they bond. Quite frankly

>>>>>>>>>>>>that

>>>>>>>>>>>>explanation is rubbish.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if we begin on the premises that a sodium ion is bonding

>>>>>>>>>>>> with a

>>>>>>>>>>>>chloride ion, it still doesn't make any sense. As they come

>>>>>>>>>>>>close

>>>>>>>>>>>>together, the outer electrons should be repelling each other.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Standard

>>>>>>>>>>>>theory says that overall, one is negative and one is positive.

>>>>>>>>>>>>But the

>>>>>>>>>>>>closer they come together, the closer that swapped electron

>>>>>>>>>>>>comes to its

>>>>>>>>>>>>original parent. At the end of the day, we will have two neutral

>>>>>>>>>>>>atoms

>>>>>>>>>>>>bonded together, in which the outer electrons should be having

>>>>>>>>>>>>the

>>>>>>>>>>>>dominant effect and mutually repelling. That doesn't happen.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> There is something seriously lacking in atomic

>>>>>>>>>>>> bonding

>>>>>>>>>>>>theory. If the Earth is neutral, why does it take any part in

>>>>>>>>>>>>electric

>>>>>>>>>>>>circuit theory? Why do electrons flow to Earth?

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Yours sincerely

>>>>>>>>>>>> David Tombe

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/07/23/n-bodies/

nigel cook on Jul 24th, 2006 at 4:07 am

‘... the ‘inexorable laws of physics’ ... were never really there ... Newton could not predict the behaviour of three balls ... In retrospect we can see that the determinism of pre-quantum physics kept itself from ideological bankruptcy only by keeping the three balls of the pawnbroker apart.’ – Tim Poston and Ian Stewart, Analog, November 1981.

It isn’t quantum physics that is the oddity, but actually classical physics! The normal teaching of Newtonian physics (at least at low levels) falsely claims/indoctrinates the persistent lie that it allows the positions of the planets to be exactly calculated (determinism) when it does not if you have 3+ bodies, which you do. Richard P. Feynman conceded this in his book QED:

‘when the space through which a photon moves becomes too small (such as the tiny holes in the screen) ... we discover that ... there are interferences created by the two holes, and so on. The same situation exists with electrons: when seen on a large scale, they travel like particles, on definite paths. But on a small scale, such as inside an atom, the space is so small that ... interference becomes very important.’

The interference is due to many vacuum virtual charges:

‘All charges are surrounded by clouds of virtual photons, which spend part of their existence dissociated into fermion-antifermion pairs.’ – I. Levine, D. Koltick, et al., Physical Review Letters, v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424.

The duration and maximum range of these charges is easily estimated: take the energy-time form of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and put in the energy of an electron-positron pair and you find it can exist for ~10^-21 second; the maximum possible range is therefore this time multiplied by c, or 10^-12 metre. This is far enough to deflect electrons but not enough to be observed as vacuum radioactivity. Like Brownian motion, it introduces chaos on small scales, not large ones:

‘... the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical scatter relations, as I proposed [in the 1934 book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’]. ... There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either Heisenberg’s or Bohr’s subjectivist interpretation ...’ – Sir Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303.

The Schroedinger wave equation arises naturally from a sea of particles because we know that you get waves in particle-based fluids: http://feynman137.tripod.com/#b

Here's the response from Feynman's erstwhile co-author, Professor Post:

From: "jonathan post" jvospost2@yahoo.com

To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 8:55 PM

Subject: Third day with no power to our home, Re: Vacuum polarization, renormalization

> Dear Nigel,

>

> Third day with no power to our home, as record

> heatwave continues and transformers explode. some

> 13,000 homes powerless in San Gabriel Valley,

> including here in Altadena (I mean there in Altadena,

> I'm at a public PC in Pasadena, enjoying

> airconditioning). Last night rented a motel room for

> $100.05 including "bed tax" so wife & son & I could

> actually sleep.

>

> Yours is a good analysis and summary.

>

> I dined with Kenneth G. Wilson (Nobel prize, Physics,

> 1982) last month in Boston. He dsicovered/invented

> the Renormalization Group ["...for his theory for

> critical phenomena in connection with phase

> transitions"]. But he did not want to talk about

> Physics, just "a view on education":

>

> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/199409/msg00050.html

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com

To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com; Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:11 AM

Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride and Magnetic Spin Moment

Dear David,

(1) Catt shows experimentally that electricity enters and leaves a capacitor

at light speed, and that there is no mechanism for the electricity to slow

down while stored.

[Hence charge has an intrinsic speed of c, and has the properties of

Heaviside's energy current (electric field, magnetic field and propagation

speed c all orthagonal). In a large charged object, the equilibrium energy

currents are equal in magnitude in all directions, so the magnetic fields

(which curl around the direction of propagation) cancel each other out,

while the electric fields add up. Hence a 1 m long capacitor can be charged

with a 2 m long pulse of 5 volts, giving 10 volts because the front 1 m will

reflect back off the far end of the 1 m, and will be returning while its

electric field is adding to the further 1 m of incoming energy. This is

easily provable experimental fact just utilising pulse generator and

sampling oscilloscope, see Wireless World article "Waves in Space", March

1983. Stringers who refuse to look at experiments or accept experimental

evidence are merely extra dmensional fantasists.]

(2) In the electron, energy current is trapped in a very small loop (radius

2GM/c^2) by gravitation, which is strong enough to cause such a loop on the

black hole scale for the mass of the electron. The spin speed (x) is the

speed of the energy current going around in the loop:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/Image11.jpg (polarization shown

in: http://feynman137.tripod.com/Image17.gif).

Fermions:

In fermions, which have half integer spin, there is a half-rotation (180

degrees) of the plane of the electric field vector (which is orthagonal to

the direction of the spin) during each spin revolution, so the loop is like

a Mobius strip requiring 720 degrees of rotation to complete a rotational

transformation: if you draw a line on the Mobius strip surface while

rotating it, the length of the line is twice the circumference of the loop

because both surfaces are joined via the half twist, hence you need to

rotate the Mobius strip 720 degrees to get it back to the beginning.

Bosons:

Instead of a rotation of the electric field vector, there is a variation in

the strength of the electric field vector from -E to +E around the

circumference. The mean electric field strength is therefore zero. This is

like alternating current where the voltage on one side at any given time is

the opposite of that on the other.

The Stern-Gerlach experiment merely shows the existence of two spin states.

Electrons can have two spin states, "up" and "down" spin only (the up and

down are not literal descriptions, any more than colour charges of quarks

like red and blue are real colours).

If an electron is propagating along (parallel to) the axis of its rotation,

which is also the magnetic field polar axis, it can be going either with its

North magnetic pole first, or with its South magnetic pole first. This

gives the two possible spin states. If an electron passes a magnet with its

North pole forward, it's course will be deflected towards the South pole of

the magnet. Vice-versa, the electron will be deflected the other way.

Hence this is the mechanism for the Stern Gerlach experiment.

Kind regards,

nigel

Copy of new comment of mine to

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/07/23/n-bodies/ (may be deleted by the time

you receive this):

nigel cook on Jul 24th, 2006 at 4:07 am

'... the 'inexorable laws of physics' ... were never really there ... Newton

could not predict the behaviour of three balls ... In retrospect we can see

that the determinism of pre-quantum physics kept itself from ideological

bankruptcy only by keeping the three balls of the pawnbroker apart.' - Tim

Poston and Ian Stewart, Analog, November 1981.

It isn't quantum physics that is the oddity, but actually classical physics!

The normal teaching of Newtonian physics (at least at low levels) falsely

claims/indoctrinates the persistent lie that it allows the positions of the

planets to be exactly calculated (determinism) when it does not if you have

3+ bodies, which you do. Richard P. Feynman conceded this in his book QED:

'when the space through which a photon moves becomes too small (such as the

tiny holes in the screen) ... we discover that ... there are interferences

created by the two holes, and so on. The same situation exists with

electrons: when seen on a large scale, they travel like particles, on

definite paths. But on a small scale, such as inside an atom, the space is

so small that ... interference becomes very important.'

The interference is due to many vacuum virtual charges:

'All charges are surrounded by clouds of virtual photons, which spend part

of their existence dissociated into fermion-antifermion pairs.' - I. Levine,

D. Koltick, et al., Physical Review Letters, v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424.

The duration and maximum range of these charges is easily estimated: take

the energy-time form of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and put in the

energy of an electron-positron pair and you find it can exist for ~10^-21

second; the maximum possible range is therefore this time multiplied by c,

or 10^-12 metre. This is far enough to deflect electrons but not enough to

be observed as vacuum radioactivity. Like Brownian motion, it introduces

chaos on small scales, not large ones:

'... the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as

statistical scatter relations, as I proposed [in the 1934 book 'The Logic of

Scientific Discovery']. ... There is, therefore, no reason whatever to

accept either Heisenberg's or Bohr's subjectivist interpretation ...' - Sir

Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303.

The Schroedinger wave equation arises naturally from a sea of particles

because we know that you get waves in particle-based fluids:

http://feynman137.tripod.com/#b

----- Original Message -----

From: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com

To: nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;

imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com;

Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;

graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;

george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 10:19 PM

Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride and Magnetic Spin Moment

> Dear Nigel,

> In your letter below, I fail to see,

> (1) where the speed of light even enters into the matter

> (2) what you mean by spin speed x

>

> And if your theory is right, then why do we ever have a Stern-Gerlach

> effect?

>

> Yours sincerely

> David Tombe

>

> ----Original Message Follows----

> From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com

> To: "David Tombe"

> sirius184@hotmail.com,epola@tiscali.co.uk,imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au,jvospost2@yahoo.com,Monitek@aol.com

> CC:

> marinsek@aon.at,pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au,graham@megaquebec.net,andrewpost@gmail.com,george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov,tom@tomspace.com

> Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride and Magnetic Spin Moment

> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:41:07 +0100

>

> Dear David,

>

> I've explained that and related matters in Electronics World in 2003: the

> electron propagates along the axs of spin and the magnetic field lines

> from the poles are parallel to the direction of propagation.

>

> This maintains the total speed of energy current in the spinning electron

> at c. The spin (direction of the trapped energy current) is always

> perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the particle. Hence by

> Pythagoras, spin speed x and propagation speed v are added up as

> (x^2)+(v^2) = c^2. Since time is measured by internal motion, the

> relative time for the electron is x/c = [1 - (v^2)/(c^2)]^1/2.

>

> Best wishes,

> nigel

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.comCc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com; Monitek@aol.com

Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 10:45 AM

Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride and Magnetic Spin Moment

The electron is a magnetic dipole as well as an electric monopole. The

magnetic field lines originate from the poles (which coincide with the axis

of spin) and these magnetic field lines are parallel to the radial electric

field lines. See the illustration I emailed link to previously from the

Electronics World 2003:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/Image11.jpg

http://feynman137.tripod.com/Image17.gif

----- Original Message -----

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com

To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;

imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com;

Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;

graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;

george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 10:41 AM

Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride and Magnetic Spin Moment

> Dear David,

>

> I've explained that and related matters in Electronics World in 2003: the

> electron propagates along the axs of spin and the magnetic field lines

> from the poles are parallel to the direction of propagation.

>

> This maintains the total speed of energy current in the spinning electron

> at c. The spin (direction of the trapped energy current) is always

> perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the particle. Hence by

> Pythagoras, spin speed x and propagation speed v are added up as

> (x^2)+(v^2) = c^2. Since time is measured by internal motion, the

> relative time for the electron is x/c = [1 - (v^2)/(c^2)]^1/2.

>

> Best wishes,

> nigel

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.comTo: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com; Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:29 AM

Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride and Magnetic Spin Moment

Obviously if you push the end of a rod, the actual delay for the other end

to start moving is t = [length]/v where v is the speed of sound in the rod,

which is a few thousand m/s (very much slower than light speed).

The deep reason is that to make a rod move, you have to move not just the

electrons but the nuclei, which have in effect a very low speed. Since an

electron is electrically bound to the nucleus, for Schroedinger type orbits

(where the electron doesn't orbit in a circle at constant distance, but

regularly recedes from and approaches the nucleus, creating collision-type

conditions) conservation of momentum suggests that the average speed of the

nucleus is less than that of the electron by the ration of masses. Hence

the nucleus has an average speed 1800 times lower than an electron. Since

an electron orbits at around 1% of light speed, the speed of sound in a

solid should be on the order 0.01 x (3 x 10^8)/1800 = 1700 m/s, which is

indeed the correct speed of sound in solids. The speed of sound in air is

slower because the density is lower and time is wasted while molecules are

approaching one another between collisions.

Best wishes,

nigel

----- Original Message -----

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com

To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;

imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com;

Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;

graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;

george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:15 AM

Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride and Magnetic Spin Moment

> Dear David,

>

> "Whatever Ivor Catt claims to have shown, I can assure you

> that whatever enters a capacitor at the speed c is a wave and not a

> charge.

> Electric particles do not travel at c in an electric circuit." - David

>

> No. If I push the end of a 1 m long rod at 1 mm/s, the energy travels to

> the other end faster than the rod physically moves.

>

> It doesn't take 1000 seconds for the other end of the rod, 1 m away, to

> start moving. You are confusing the speed of electric particles with the

> wave speed.

>

> From this remark you don't seem to be aware of this. I keep explaining,

> that light speed radiation constitutes the field and causes charges to

> start moving. Back in 1996, Catt wrote me a letter saying that the water

> in the Severn Bore (the tidal wave that goes up the River Severn) goes at

> the wave speed, which is not true. It is fairly crazy how physics and

> engineering-trained people don't grasp this. You can toss some coloured

> dye into a wave to see how fast the water is actually moving.

>

> Magnetism is generated by the spin of charge. Dirac used this to

> calculate the electron's magnetic moment in 1928.

>

> When it comes to the transmission line, the essential mechanism problem is

> that electrons have got to be accelerated to drift speed. The failure of

> Catt's model to address electron motion stems from Heaviside's step, which

> is a discontinuity; electrons can't be accelerated instantly. If they

> were instantly accelerated to any drift speed (even 1 mm/s), the

> acceleration would be dv/dt = dv/0 = infinite/undefined, so the transverse

> radio power emission would be infinite, because that is directly

> proportional to the acceleration of charge. Catt's use of Ockham's Razor

> to ignore charge motion lays him open to the charge that is isn't

> addressing electricity properly.

>

> The actual mechanism of electromagnetic force fields is the exchange of

> force carrying radiation; most simply as energy emitted continuously (not

> as quanta or oscillations) due to the intrinsic spin (centripetal

> acceleration) of charges. This dynamic system makes the force carrying

> radiation (the "gauge bosons" of the standard model quantum field theory)

> distinct from quantum radiation. I can't detect quantum exchange

> radiation between two charges or two magnets, so presumably the exchange

> radiation giving rise to an electromagnetic field behaves like a

> continuum, and is not discrete oscillating packets. Since equal amounts

> of the radiation are going each way between two charges at any time, the

> exchange is similar to that in a DC transmission line: the curls of the

> magnetic fields of each energy flow cancels out the other, leaving just

> the electric field to be observed. Real photons are oscillations or

> disruptions in the normal exchange equilibrium

>

> For an actual transmission line, the electron accelerations at the front

> are not infinite. In each of the two conductors, the electrons are

> accelerated in an opposite direction to that of the other, but the

> acceleration magnitude is identical. Therefore, each acceleration of

> charge emits a radio pulse which is an exact inversion of that from the

> other conductor. At large distances, these radio pulses interfere and

> cancel exactly, and between the conductors the energy is exchanged with

> 100% efficiency (zero loss). The radio transmission from each conductor

> to the other induces the acceleration of the electrons in the other

> conductor.

>

> Once the front (with increasing voltage and increasing current) has

> passed, if the voltage is constant as a function of distance (as Catt

> shows in the Catt anomaly for instance), currents can then only be

> produced by the magnetic field due to the other conductor, so each

> conductor produces currents in the other which generate magnetic fields,

> and so on.

>

> In Catt's "anomaly/question" illustration, there is no displacement

> current (i = dD/dt) shown to flow from one conductor to the other in the

> transmission line, merely displacement D. Since the transmission line is

> a capacitor, this means that the standard concept Heaviside's step (in

> which dD/dt is always undefined/infinite) itself rules out the useful

> concept of "displacement current", according to Heaviside/Catt. However,

> the reality is that functions associated with "displacement current" are

> actually performed by radiation from charges accelerated by the

> non-vertical fronted step. The Catt/Heaviside model is a valid model

> where the risetime is insignificant and where the mechanism of the TEM

> wave physics can be ignored.

>

> Kind regards,

> nigel

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com

> To: nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;

> imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com;

> Monitek@aol.com

> Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;

> graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;

> george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:50 AM

> Subject: Re: Sodium Chloride and Magnetic Spin Moment

>

>

>> Dear Nigel,

>> Whatever Ivor Catt claims to have shown, I can assure you

>> that whatever enters a capacitor at the speed c is a wave and not a

>> charge. Electric particles do not travel at c in an electric circuit.

>>

>> We are digressing from the original issue regarding

>> 'spin' and the Pauli Exclusion principle. I don't doubt the accuracy of

>> the Pauli exclusion principle. But it doesn't tell us what is actually

>> happening. It mentions spin, but it gives us no idea of the detailed

>> dynamics.

>>

>> Likening electrons to bar magnets does not automatically

>> lead to the Pauli exclusion principle. I can envisage many obscure ring

>> situations which could be set up around the nucleus by treating electrons

>> like bar magnets.

>>

>> Overall, a magnet is neutral because in the large

>> picture, a sea of bar magnets will be giving off as much repulsive force

>> as attractive force.

>>

>> The question of atomic bonding and mutually repelling

>> electrons is not addressed by the Pauli exclusion principle.

>>

>> I would expect the electron clouds of two neutral

>> atoms to repel each other as soon as the atoms came close together. I

>> fail to see how making the electrons into bar magnets could save the

>> situation. They'd be having to swivel around like mad trying to make

>> themselves attractive to every other electron and trying to hide their

>> repulsive faces. There would be alot of electrons unwillingly showing

>> their repulsive faces and cancelling out the benefits of their attractive

>> faces.

>>

>> I don't think spin gets you off the hook on the

>> bonding issue, just as I don't think it gets Guy off the hook on the

>> instability of the epola, and just as I don't think it gets the other man

>> off the hook on the issue of Cooper pairs.

>>

>> Yours sincerely

>> David Tombe

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.comTo: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com; Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:37 PM

Subject: Re: Negatively charged bodies can repel on the large scale

Dear David,

"You both seemed very dismissive of my idea that like charges

> attract. You both cited the standard laboratory experiments which show

> negatively charged bodies on the large scale repelling each other. Do you

> accept that there might be a mechanism which can cause a reversal effect

> in large bodies?" - David.

No. There "might be a mechanism" whereby Jesus walked on water and raised

the dead, and whereby string theory could produce some dynamics for gravity,

and whereby we can travel backwards in time, but this speculation is not

physics, it's just time-wasting speculation. I'm dismissive of the idea

that like charges attract, as it's the opposite to what they do, and I've

been into the vortex already. Nature is subtle. You have got an

over-simplistic model, like caloric or phlogiston. The mechanism is a

little a bit more complex, and Occam's razor shouldn't permit you to use an

idea which is so over-simplistic with no evidence at all to validate it.

"> I can't follow your line of argument in which you

seem

> to consider EM radiation as a fundamental entity in itself, that has an

> effect on electrons and positrons." - David.

Energy carried by matter is not the same thing as matter. Physics is mainly

the business of dealing with energy, whereas chemistry is mainly the

business of dealing with matter (see Dr Glasstone's textbook Elements of

Physical Chemistry, pages 1-3; Einstein's E=mc^2 only comes into play where

nuclear reactions occur). I'm considering the physics of energy. This

doesn't mean I have to focus at this stage on the mass which may be carrying

that energy. The vacuum by normal definition has no real matter anyway.

The virtual charges in the vacuum don't have to be endlessly mentioned, they

carry the energy. I'm concerned mainly the processes by which energy is

exchanged by masses to cause gravity and other fundamental forces. My

calculations which predict force strengths don't depend on the details of

the matter in the vacuum except where it gets polarized and causes

attenuation of force fields. I've said before that although I accept the

vacuum charges are involved in light, it is not the way Maxwell's theory

says it is.

Maxwell's theory is simplistic crackpot falsehood because the functions he

ascribes to displacement current are actually performed by radiation,

radiation of energy doesn't require oscillation (Heaviside energy currents

don't need to oscillate to propagate; you can have continuous

non-oscillating radiation of energy providing simply that there is a two-way

exchange of energy so that the two energy currents cancel each other's

magnetic fields and therefore prevent the effective self inductance from

being infinite: this is how strong electric fields add up between like

charges).

Dipole magnetism of electrons: the polar magnetic field strength B is

related to the unattenuated radial electric field strength E by simply B =

E/c. The vacuum charge polarization around the electron core cuts down the

long range observable electric charge and field strength by a factor around

137, but it doesn't cut down the polar magnetic field strength and in fact

increases it slightly (by about 0.116%) instead. So the electron's

magnetism is relatively strong compared to its electric field. The

relationship just given, B = E/c, holds for the TEM wave trapped in a small

loop of 2GM/c^2 radius at the core of the electron. It is not a

relationship showing that B is caused by E (or vice-versa), but simply that

both are related by the factor c in the TEM wave. However, the magnetic

effects originate from the loop at the core (by core I simply mean it is in

the middle, inside the polarized shells of vacuum charge). Therefore, if

you measure the electron's electric field and magnetism at a distance

outside the polarized vacuum-charge shells, you will find B is 0.116% higher

than suggested while E is about 137 times weaker than suggested by B = E/c.

Hence the correct relationship at well outside the electron polarization

shells is B = (137...)(1.00116)E/c, which is very strong compared to the

electric field strength.

Kind regards,

nigel

----- Original Message -----

From: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com

To: nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;

imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com;

Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;

graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;

george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:12 PM

Subject: Negatively charged bodies can repel on the large scale

> Dear Nigel,

> I'm fully aware of the difference between wave motion and

> particle motion. As far as I am concerned, anything at all that involves

> the speed 'c' in EM theory is a wave motion. And as far as I am concerned

> a wave is a propagated oscillation in a particulate medium, and in the

> case of EM radiation, that wave is a propagated oscillation in a

> dielectric medium comprising electrons and positrons.

>

> I can't follow your line of argument in which you seem

> to consider EM radiation as a fundamental entity in itself, that has an

> effect on electrons and positrons. There's a complete cross purposes going

> here.

>

> I broadly speaking agree with the last letter from Guy,

> although there are some finer details and terminologies which would need

> further clarification.

>

> But let's not stray away from the issue that unites you

> and Guy. This issue of spin. We all agree that it exists. We all agree

> that it has a magnetic effect. But does it have the necessary magnitude or

> directional properties to explain why Cooper pairs bond together, why

> electron clouds do not mutually repel, or to be able to combat the Coulomb

> force and hold up the epola?

>

> You both seemed very dismissive of my idea that like

> charges attract. You both cited the standard laboratory experiments which

> show negatively charged bodies on the large scale repelling each other. Do

> you accept that there might be a mechanism which can cause a reversal

> effect in large bodies?

>

> Are you both totally satisfied that on the small scale,

> that electrons repel each other?

>

> Yours sincerely

> David Tombe

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.comTo: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com; Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:17 AM

Subject: Re: The Definition of Energy

Dear David,

" (1) What is your understanding of the concept of energy?"- David

Energy produces forces by allowing work to be done, energy = force x

distance moved in direction of force.

"(2) Do you agree with this statement?

> "Elementary hydrodynamics demonstrates that there are

> in existence, four fundamental forces." - David

No,the list you give is not science as it doesn't predict anything right.

Like ESP and string theory, it is not even wrong. That's why I'm concerned

with checkable predictions.

Kind regards,

nigel

----- Original Message -----

From: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com

To: nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;

imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com;

Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;

graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;

george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:01 AM

Subject: The Definition of Energy

> Dear Nigel,

> I simply can't understand concepts like trapped energy

> currents, or what is your idea of the physical significance of 'c'. To me,

> 'c' is a function of density and transverse elasticity of a particulate

> dielectric medium.

>

> So I think we will have to go back to fundamentals.

>

> (1) What is your understanding of the concept of energy?

>

> (2) Do you agree with this statement?

> "Elementary hydrodynamics demonstrates that there are

> in existence, four fundamental forces. These are:

>

> (a) Irrotational Radial Flow/Inverse Square Law/Coulomb Force

> (b) Centrifugal Repulsion (important for defying gravity in orbital

> mechanics)

> (c) The Gyroscopic/Coriolis Force (F = vXB)

> (d) Angular Force ÝA/Ýt (important in electromagnetic induction) (ie.

> the partial derivative of vector A with respect to time, where curl A = B)

>

> Yours sincerely

> David Tombe

Explaining to college physics teacher David Tombe what "energy" is.

To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com; Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com

Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:44 PM

Subject: Re: The Definition of Energy

Dear David,

Energy causes matter to accelerate, because the matter gains kinetic energy

as it accelerates. The energy comes from the potential energy provided by

the force field. Where you ask "Do we need to have a particle to have an

acceleration?", I don't know whether you refer by "particle" to matter being

accelerated or to energy causing the acceleration. An acceleration field of

9.8 m/s^2 exists at earth's surface regardless of whether there is an apple

or particle there or not. You need an acceleration field to have a force,

but you don't need to deliver energy because energy E = Fx where F is force

and x is distance moved in the same direction as F, as a result of F. If x

= 0, then no matter how big or small is F, energy E = 0.

Kind regards,

nigel

----- Original Message -----

From: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com

To: nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;

imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com;

Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;

graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;

george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:04 PM

Subject: Re: The Definition of Energy

> Dear Nigel,

> Do we need to have a particle to have an acceleration? And

> do we need to have an acceleration to have a force? And do we need to have

> a force to have energy?

>

> Yours sincerely

> David Tombe

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.comCc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

To: "jonathan post" jvospost2@yahoo.com; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com

Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:25 PM

Subject: Re: Einstein and "superfluous erudition"

"at a recent colloquium, I

had the opportunity to ask Peter Galison, whose books

Dr. Dickson uses as a source, what he thought of

Poincaré's failure to "nail it." He replied that if

Einstein's formulation had not paved the road for

general relativity, we'd probably regard Einstein's

theory and Poincare's as two ways of looking at the

same thing." (below)

This is horseshit. General relativity rejects the principle of special

relativity because as Einstein said, the velocity of light depends on the

background coordinates wherever gravity is present (everywhere in the

universe). Similarly, other people like Prof. Lubos Motl claim special

relativity is right because Dirac unified it with quantum mechanics to

produce QFT, but this is a lie because the special relativity Hamiltonian is

a failure, and the whole basis of the Dirac equation is the ad hoc

modification Dirac was forced to make to the special relativity Hamiltonian

to make it work. Put simply, special relativity is a lie in QFT because the

vacuum charges look different depending on your state of motion, so there is

an aether of a sort. The same goes for general relativity, although there

the vacuum ether is a continuum not particulate charges. The unification of

general relativity and QFT requires a vacuum charge spacetime fabric for

QFT, which mediates or carries continuum radiation which causes the forces

in general relativity.

Nigel

----- Original Message -----

From: "jonathan post" jvospost2@yahoo.com

To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe"

sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;

imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;

graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;

george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:02 PM

Subject: Einstein and "superfluous erudition"

> American Scientist

> July-August 2006

> LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

> To the Editors:

>

> Tony Rothman's delightful essay "Lost in Einstein's

> Shadow," (Marginalia, March-April) depicts some able

> scientists who made genuine progress along two of the

> three lines that Albert Einstein subsequently made his

> own in 1905. It becomes clear that the reason for

> their eclipse was not that their achievements were

> small, but rather that Einstein's definitive results

> were so all-encompassing. This may explain why there

> is no record of indignation among the eclipsed about

> their lack of credit. Indeed, at least Hendrik Lorentz

> formed a long and friendly relationship with Einstein.

> Occasionally seen indignation by third parties

> therefore rings false-just envious iconoclasm.

>

> For physicists such as myself, with limited historical

> knowledge, there was one person (unmentioned in the

> essay) who was not eclipsed: Marian Smoluchowski, who

> independently found the relation between Brownian

> motion and the molecular structure of matter.

>

> Perhaps the most remarkable omission from the essay is

> the topic of anyone even partially anticipating

> Einstein in his third line of research, the notion of

> localized energy packets that he called light quanta.

> Max Planck had introduced energy quanta almost as a

> bookkeeping device to account for the form of

> blackbody radiation, but Einstein made these quanta

> concrete by associating them with definite locations.

>

> In this case it appears that no one was overshadowed,

> because no one except Einstein even tried to advance

> beyond Planck. It was Einstein's most controversial

> proposal in 1905 and arguably the one that most shapes

> our world today. He thought of it as revolutionary,

> and the lack of precedents tends to vindicate his

> view.

>

> In short, if some people deserve more credit than the

> community has given them, still Einstein does not

> deserve less.

>

> Alfred Scharff Goldhaber

> State University of New York at Stony Brook

>

> To the Editors:

>

> Dr. Rothman's thesis, that often one person is given

> too much credit for a scientific discovery while many

> others were close to the same discovery, is an almost

> universal truth. But the example he picked, Einstein,

> is a major exception.

>

> In the case of special relativity, the work of James

> Clerk Maxwell, Isaac Newton and others was a

> prerequisite, but Einstein's work was truly a

> breakthrough.

>

> It is true that Lorentz and Henri Poincaré had derived

> equations identical to those of special relativity. It

> is also true that these two were geniuses. It is

> natural that they would derive correctly working

> equations after applying their significant talents to

> the subject for so many years and studying the prior

> theoretical and experimental work. It appears from

> their work that they had only a last conceptual step

> to bridge. But that last step was huge. So huge, in

> fact, that neither man understood it, even after they

> saw Einstein's work. They both demonstrated their lack

> of understanding in works they published years after

> 1905.

>

> Einstein's theory seems obvious to those who were

> taught only it to begin with, so when we see brilliant

> theorists deriving the same equations and flirting

> with 'local times," we tend to think they were close

> to seeing the truth and assume the theory was

> virtually at hand. But with their lifetimes steeped in

> one paradigm, they simply could never have developed

> the correct concept. It took the truly revolutionary

> approach that Einstein achieved. For that and all his

> other accomplishments, he truly deserved the accolades

> he received during the year of physics.

>

> Paul Dickson

> Aiken, SC

>

> Dr. Rothman responds:

>

> It is nice to see that "Lost in Einstein's Shadow"

> generated some interest. I must, however, first

> distance myself from Zen Antoniak's remarks in the

> May-June Letters section. Einstein was certainly the

> greatest scientist of the 20th century, if not of all

> time. His sins of omission in citing the work of

> colleagues are probably no greater than of many other

> scientists. I find it difficult to believe that an

> unknown 26-year-old patent clerk could sit in his

> office determining the future: "If I don't reference

> Poincaré, history will assign me all the credit."

> Einstein's sins of omission had larger consequences

> than most only because in retrospect he turned out to

> be Einstein.

>

> Dr. Goldhaber is certainly correct that I should have

> mentioned Smoluchowski, who formulated the theory of

> Brownian motion independently of Einstein, but who is

> nearly forgotten. His paper, though, only appeared in

> the 1906 Annalen der Physik, and, judging from his

> introductory remarks, it was Einstein's paper that

> prodded Smoluchowski into publishing his own. But

> Smoluchowski is indeed a good example of a case where

> if Einstein hadn't done something, someone else would

> have, and in fact already had.

>

> Regarding Planck, I have always felt him well-honored

> for his creation of quantum mechanics. It is true that

> for the five years after Planck introduced his quantum

> hypothesis, no one besides Einstein took it seriously

> enough to see that it should be extended to include

> the concept of "light quanta" or, in other words,

> photons. Here, I do not think there has been any

> question of priority or influence, which is why I did

> not discuss it in the essay.

>

> I am slightly less sympathetic with Dr. Dickson's

> view. If he reads the essay carefully, he will see

> that I never claimed Lorentz or Poincaré invented

> relativity. Nevertheless, I think the evidence is

> clear that their work influenced Einstein. Poincaré

> must be given credit for being the first to enunciate

> the principle of relativity, which he does in black

> and white, and for foreseeing that the speed of light

> would prove to be an impassable barrier. Furthermore,

> if one agrees that Poincaré's equations give results

> identical to Einstein's (and Poincaré does write down

> the correct "relativistic Lagrangian," the quantity

> from which the equations of relativity follow), then I

> think one must concede the issue is one of

> interpretation. Einstein provided a profoundly simple

> interpretation that we today cannot imagine doing

> physics without. However, at a recent colloquium, I

> had the opportunity to ask Peter Galison, whose books

> Dr. Dickson uses as a source, what he thought of

> Poincaré's failure to "nail it." He replied that if

> Einstein's formulation had not paved the road for

> general relativity, we'd probably regard Einstein's

> theory and Poincare's as two ways of looking at the

> same thing.

>

> Yes, we revere Einstein because his achievements were

> so all-encompassing, but neither should one think that

> he wrapped up everything in a blinding flash. There

> are mistakes in the 1905 relativity paper, including a

> serious conceptual error regarding the bending of

> starlight ("aberration"), one of the phenomena

> Einstein created his theory to explain. He also

> initially rejected Hermann Minkowski's wedding of

> space and time (anticipated again by Poincaré) as

> "superfluous erudition." All of which goes to show

> that science is, indeed, a collective endeavor and

> that science, like art, consists of far more than the

> few icons we are exposed to in concert halls or

> museums.

>

> === end email ===

>

From: Nigel Cook

To: mikegi

Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:02 AM

Subject: Re: Maxwell's Displacement and Einstein's Trace, etc.

Hi Mike Gibson,

Many thanks for your comments. I've seen your papers dealing with the inductor and transformer as transmission lines. Everything is a transmission line. I assume you are commenting on the illustrations at http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html

or http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells.html. Any disagreement between myself and Catt stems from my inststence that the number one problem is clarifying the mechanism by which the electromagnetic field and TEM wave actually work, since Heaviside's model is incomplete.

Yes from the electronics design point of view, you can use the simplest model which works for your frequency, etc. When it comes to the transmission line, the essential mechanism problem is that electrons have got to be accelerated to drift speed. The failure of Catt's model to address electron motion stems from Heaviside's step, which is a discontinuity; electrons can't be accelerated instantly. If they were instantly accelerated to any drift speed (even 1 mm/s), the acceleration would be dv/dt = dv/0 = infinite/undefined, so the transverse radio power emission would be infinite, because that is directly proportional to the acceleration of charge. Catt's use of Ockham's Razor to ignore charge motion lays him open to the charge that is isn't addressing electricity properly.

The actual mechanism of electromagnetic force fields is the exchange of force carrying radiation; most simply as energy emitted continuously (not as quanta or oscillations) due to the intrinsic spin (centripetal acceleration) of charges. This dynamic system makes the force carrying radiation (the "gauge bosons" of the standard model quantum field theory) distinct from quantum radiation. I can't detect quantum exchange radiation between two charges or two magnets, so presumably the exchange radiation giving rise to an electromagnetic field behaves like a continuum, and is not discrete oscillating packets. Since equal amounts of the radiation are going each way between two charges at any time, the exchange is similar to that in a DC transmission line: the curls of the magnetic fields of each energy flow cancels out the other, leaving just the electric field to be observed. Real photons are oscillations or disruptions in the normal exchange equilibrium

For an actual transmission line, the electron accelerations at the front are not infinite. In each of the two conductors, the electrons are accelerated in an opposite direction to that of the other, but the acceleration magnitude is identical. Therefore, each acceleration of charge emits a radio pulse which is an exact inversion of that from the other conductor. At large distances, these radio pulses interfere and cancel exactly, and between the conductors the energy is exchanged with 100% efficiency (zero loss). The radio transmission from each conductor to the other induces the acceleration of the electrons in the other conductor.

Once the front (with increasing voltage and increasing current) has passed, if the voltage is constant as a function of distance (as Catt shows in the Catt anomaly for instance), currents can then only be produced by the magnetic field due to the other conductor, so each conductor produces currents in the other which generate magnetic fields, and so on.

In Catt's "anomaly/question" illustration, there is no displacement current (i = dD/dt) shown to flow from one conductor to the other in the transmission line, merely displacement D. Since the transmission line is a capacitor, this means that the standard concept Heaviside's step (in which dD/dt is always undefined/infinite) itself rules out the useful concept of "displacement current", according to Heaviside/Catt. However, the reality is that functions associated with "displacement current" are actually performed by radiation from charges accelerated by the non-vertical fronted step. The Catt/Heaviside model is a valid model where the risetime is insignificant and where the mechanism of the TEM wave physics can be ignored.

Just a brief comment on Catt and physics. He isn't interested, he really doesn't care about the plight of fundamental physics under string theory. However, he is not sufficiently strong in physics to adequately rework it himself, or sufficiently strong at marketing and public relations to generate any moderation of the string theory community which since 1985 has basically run physics into science fiction

He declined to co-author a six-page Electronics World article with me, as did Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson (who later published a crackpot ESP-string theory paper on the arXiv.org, which deleted my paper in 2002 while I was at Gloucestershire University).

It is not up to Catt to try to sort out conventional theory, but given the situation prevailing at present it would be helpful if someone did so. Instead, they all decline from analysing the mechanism by which a forcefield physically causes effects. Those most responsible are the string theory mathematicians, who worship si*t.

Kind regards,

nigel.

----- Original Message -----

From: "mikegi" mikegi@adelphia.net

To: nigelbryancook@hotmail.com

Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:28 AM

Subject: Maxwell's Displacement and Einstein's Trace, etc.

>I stumbled onto your website(s) tonight and wound up confused. I coauthored

> a short paper with Catt back in 1987 on the transmission line model for

> inductors (and transformers). Anyway, I'd like to offer a correction to your

> correction of Catt's transmission line model for the capacitor.

> Theoretically, a perfectly conducting transmission line can support a step

> waveform. However, neither of these things exist.

>

> You need to think in terms of time scales and which models apply at each

> scale. Here are the basic levels:

>

> 1) Lumped model. The lumped model is appropriate for low frequency em

> signals. When the frequencies are high enough, the model fails due to

> transmission line effects. This is the transition point between the RLC

> model and Catt's transmission line theory. Think of this as a one

> dimensional model (the 3D shape of circuit elements are condensed into a

> single parameter, eg. C, L, etc.). You analyze the circuit with simple

> Laplace or Fourier transforms.

>

> 2) Transmission lines. Here we model everything as a TL and assume the TL

> can support any waveform. Catt and I used this to describe the inductor

> hosting a step wave to show how energy is reflected and transferred. I

> describe this as a 2D model (the 3D reality is condensed down to Z and

> length). Analysis is more difficult, requiring Z transforms or numerical

> simulations.

>

> 3) Free em waves. This is currently the lowest level in circuit theory.

> Here, circuit elements are a perfect conductors with 3d shapes. EM waves

> reflect and bounce around between them. There are few, if any, analytical

> techniques. Free em waves are best analyzed with Transmission Line Matrix

> (TLM) simulators.

>

> Once you get to #3 you see how things really work. A change in the shape of

> the conductors (ie. a change in Z) doesn't result in a sharp reflection but

> rather an emission of spherical waves from the discontinuities. The waves

> bounce around between the conductors and build up a sharper edge over time

> and distance. The most startling example is a pair of wires (narrow

> transmission line) feeding into a pair of plates (a capacitor). You see the

> wave reflect off the front and slosh around inside the capacitor.

>

> Anyway, I thought I'd toss my thoughts out there. They're the result of many

> numerical simulations and some experimentation.

>

> Mike Gibson

>

>

New comment to Prof. Motl's blog:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/from-strings-to-lhc.html

Dear Lumos,

Suppose string theory is correct, and gravity mediated by spin 2 gauge bosons (exchange radiation between masses, since masses are the units of gravitational charge).

Assuming this, would the exchange radiation (gravitons, gravity gauge bosons, vector bosons, whatever you call it) be redshifted by cosmological expansion over large distances?

If so this would weaken gravity over immense distances, explaining why gravity doesn't slow the recession of distant supernovae. Hence the need to invent a small positive cosmological constant (and a massive amount of "dark energy" to explain that cosmological constant) disappears.

Also, the disagreement between this "dark energy observation" and the vacuum energy, as calculated by supersymmetry predictions, will disappear.

Suppose you were confronted by the argument above, would you be able to put a note on arxiv.org about it?

Kind regards,

anon

anon | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 12:07 pm | #

Peter Woit is on the radio in a 7 minutes 4 seconds long BBC Radio 4 Today programme interview of Dr Peter Woit versus Dr Daniel Waldram (reader in theoretical physics at Imperial College, London University) last Thursday 27th of July 2006 (you can hear it on line as it is the second to last item listed on the page http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/thursday.shtml , although I fear it will automatically get lost from that html page when another Thursday passes by, so will try copy some brief audio clips and to type up a complete transcript before it is too late!). In the meanwhile here are some extracts typed up:

BBC Radio 4 Today Programme Presenter: "The first book setting out the arguments against string theory has been published. String theory is the theory of how the world works that's held sway for the past twenty years. But now the mathematician Professor Peter Woit has written a book called "Not Even Wrong" in which he argues that the theory is "too speculative to ever be able to prove it is wrong, let alone right".

BBC radio science correspondent Matt McGrath: "String theory is an idea that tries to bring together theories of big science dealing with space, stars, black holes, with theories of little science of the world of elementary particles such as quarks and leptons. For years, scientists have been trying to weave them together in a unified theory of everything, but there are some big problems. In big science, the fabric of space and time is smooth, but down at the subatomic level where distances are very small indeed, it's a seething foaming mess where past, present and future are no longer predictable. To solve this conundrum, enter the string. The core of the theory is that instead of seeing the smallest elements of matter as points in space or time, we should understand them as strings or loops of vibrating energy. ... No experiments have proven any of this yet. ..."

Woit: "There are so many things that you can do with these [extra] six dimensions that you cannot extract a prediction from the theory."

Copy of comment to Woit's blog:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=435#comment-13920

nigel cook Says:

July 29th, 2006 at 11:10 am

The BBC interview shows how string theorists take the fact that string theory is a failure, and then use that as a reason to continue trying. You have to admire their perseverance. (If it predicted anything, would they finally call it ‘boring’, and move on?)

Daniel’s point is that string theory is interesting, exciting and ‘beautiful’ because it can’t predict anything to help physics.

He then said that there is no real problem of suppression because people are totally free to do whatever they want (they merely lose grants, jobs, career prospects if they don’t follow mainstream).

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.comCc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; jvospost2@yahoo.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com

Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:50 PM

Subject: Re: Bosons -The Defining Question

Dear David,

You can't have a region of space where the vacuum charges ("virtual

charges") are absent, but obviously you can have a region of space where

there are no real electrons or positrons (which are emitted by many

radio-isotopes, whoops, I mean nuclides which is the new term for them).

Your email doesn't distinguish what charges or particles you refer to, it

isn't precise so it is hard to attach physical meaning to what you are

referring to; you could mean anything you are so vague.

As I told you before, the gauge boson radiation to give rise to smooth

deflection of light by gravity (rather than diffuse images of light

deflected by gravity which would be the case in the event of

particle-particle scattering such as photon-graviton scattering) indicates

that the ultimate force field mehanism is continuum not particles, but this

continuum can be composed of particles somewhat as water waves are composed

of particulate water molecules. There is no contradiction since large

numbers of particles can cooperate to allow waves to propagate (although the

aether mechanism Maxwell proposed for light is wrong in important details).

I've stated that the recession of matter in the universe around us - which

is established fact because there is no experimentally known mechanism for

anything other than recession to give the uniformly redshifted spectra, and

the recession redshift spectra is fact - implies a variation in velocity in

proportion to time past (which is equivalent to distance in spacetime), ie

an acceleration. This acceleration away from us tells us that the outward

force of the big bang is F=ma = ~10^43 Newtons. By Newton's third law there

is equal inward force, 10^43 Newtons pressing inward. The actual inward

pressure (force/area) is immense and varies as the inverse square law,

because area of a sphere is 4 Pi times square of radius.

This inward pressure gives gravity because mass shields you. Each electron

or quark has a shielding area of A = Pi(2GM/c^2)^2 square metres, where M is

the mass of the particle and the part inside brackets is the event horizon

radius of a black hole. This is (1) validated by Catt's experimental

finding that trapped light speed energy current = static electric charge,

and (2) it is proved by a separate calculation which does not require

shielding area. The second calculation (shown side-by-side with the first

on my home page) is purely hydrodynamic:

Walk down a corridor at velocity v, your volume is x litres where x = (your

mass, kg)/(your density, ~ 1 kg/m^3) ~ 70 litres. When you get to the far

end of the corridor, you notice that a volume of 70 litres of air has been

moving at velocity -v (ie in the opposite direction to your walking),

filling in the volume you have been displacing. You don't find that air

pressure has increased where you are, you find the air has been flowing

around you and filling in the "void" you would otherwise create in your

wake. The same effect can be used to predict gravity. The outward

spherically symmetric, radial recession of mass of the universe with speeds

increasing with observable distance/time past, creates an inward "in fill".

Because of the acceleration in space time of a = c/t = Hc where H is Hubble

parameter in reciprocal seconds, the net inward push is not like the air

flow back while walking at constant speed, but an acceleration. If you run

down the corridor with acceleration a, the air will tend to accelerate at -a

(the other way). The spacetime fabric known in general relativity is a

perfect, frictionless fluid, so this works:

http://feynman137.tripod.com/ (introduction to physical theory near top of

page)

Mathematical proof: http://feynman137.tripod.com/#h

Where partially shielded by mass, the inward pressure causes gravity. Apples

are pushed downwards towards the earth, a shield: '. the source of the

gravitational field [gauge boson radiation] can be taken to be a perfect

fluid.. A fluid is a continuum that 'flows'... A perfect fluid is defined as

one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between

neighboring fluid elements is pressure.' - Bernard Schutz, General

Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

Kind regards,

nigel

----- Original Message -----

From: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com

To: nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;

jvospost2@yahoo.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au;

Monitek@aol.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;

graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;

george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 6:07 PM

Subject: Bosons -The Defining Question

> Dear Nigel,

> I think I have the question which could expose this boson

> concept. Let's imagine a region of space in which all the electrons and

> positrons are absent. Ie. we have no electric sea.

>

> You told me that particles don't need to be there in order

> for there to be force or energy.

>

> In such a vacuum region, can we have electromagnetic

> radiation? And if so, what speed does it go at? And if the answer is 'c',

> then why?

>

> Yours sincerely

> David Tombe

Reply by Professor Motl to suggestion for an arxiv paper showing that redshift of gauge bosons is a step nearer:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/from-strings-to-lhc.html

(Here follow the fast comments, first the suggestion by anon, then Motl's response and anon's reply):

Dear Lumos,

Suppose string theory is correct, and gravity mediated by spin 2 gauge bosons (exchange radiation between masses, since masses are the units of gravitational charge).

Assuming this, would the exchange radiation (gravitons, gravity gauge bosons, vector bosons, whatever you call it) be redshifted by cosmological expansion over large distances?

If so this would weaken gravity over immense distances, explaining why gravity doesn't slow the recession of distant supernovae. Hence the need to invent a small positive cosmological constant (and a massive amount of "dark energy" to explain that cosmological constant) disappears.

Also, the disagreement between this "dark energy observation" and the vacuum energy, as calculated by supersymmetry predictions, will disappear.

Suppose you were confronted by the argument above, would you be able to put a note on arxiv.org about it?

Kind regards,

anon

anon | Homepage | 07.29.06 - 12:07 pm | #

...

Dear anon,

I don't want to discourage you much but what you wrote here is far from an acceptable paper on arxiv.org. Moreover I don't quite understand how could I publish YOUR ideas.

Indeed, the rough idea that something is drastically changed at cosmological distances and forces become weaker has been formulated by many people.

A more important point at this moment is that according to the standard theories we love and trust today, the very long distance behavior of the forces IS given by the well-known power laws and there are no easy ways to make these power laws break down.

Physical gravitons and photons get red shifted by expansion, but the force they cause right now is always given by the same laws, regardless of the cosmological history.

However, I sympathize that the 1/r^2 becomes much weaker at very long distances, which could eventually even explain the cosmological data - and Hubble = 1.0/AgeOfTheUniverse - without dark energy. But you need to create a theory that is also consistent with other things we know which is not trivial.

Best

Lubos

Luboš Motl | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 4:39 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Lubos, Hope you are having a great Sunday.

Q | 07.30.06 - 5:42 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Q, a very nice one. Wishing you at least the same. Best, Lubos

Lubos Motl | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 9:11 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Lumos,

Thanks for your remarks, but can you tell me if anyone has formulated this gauge boson redshift mechanism before? I'm not interested in ad hoc speculative MOND stuff that anyone can sketch on the back of an envelope (pet theories), this is a mechanism which is true. Redshift is confirmed, and all the evidence points to forces being mediated by exchange radiation.

The earth and moon are not receding from one another significantly. Hence redshift is not a contributor to inverse square law in most cases. Newton showed that gravity between earth and moon is given by inverse square law, see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~wo...2#comment- 13697 , where redshift of light and gauge bosons between the two masses is NOT involved!

Redshift of the gravitons is significant on cosmological distance scales. It is easy to calculate the precise effect due to redshift: the proportionate loss of energy of photons and gravitons at any distance would reduce gravity constant G by the same factor.

I plot the predicted recession curve allowing for the reduced G involved in gravity retardation effects on receding galaxies at any given distance from us. If you want I'll draft a paper with the equations and some graphs, comparing the redshift mechanism to the ad hoc Lambda-CDM speculation, and to the actual data: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/GRBHD/ . I can provide a reference to a publication of this dated Oct96, preceding the current Lambda-CDM theory and also preceding Perlmutter's discovery that there is no observable gravitational retardation (the so called evidence for a small positive CC and dark energy; which is actually confirmation of the redshift mechanism).

This would wipe out all the paradoxes of a small positive CC, leaving a slate clean for new ideas.

Best wishes,

anon

anon | Homepage | 07.30.06 - 11:46 am | #

Post a Comment

<< Home