Archive for the 'Classical Electrodynamics' Category

Feb 11 2022

Isotropic Property of the Coulomb Potential

In the vicinity of where our machines have been, we know that electric current will flow in any designated direction and is not particular to the direction of the highest flux density of gravitons.

For various reasons, we cannot have protons and electrons continuously flipping, – the Stern-Gerlach experiment proves that they do not. There must be internal processes of the proton and electron which produce isotropic electric fields. Some of this was previously addressed in two blog entries:

http://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2010/12/09/field-line-curvature/

http://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2010/06/15/muonic-states/

It is possible that not all conjugate wave gravitons pass straight through a proton or electron, or that even with a free proton or electron that the gravitons leaving have just entered. Some may make a horseshoe pattern and come out near the same point entered. They may be able to come back out at any angle. As compressed as the gravitons become inside a particle, almost any shape can occur. Gravitational pressure dictates a consistent size of a free proton or electron.

With the flux density coming out of the face of the earth, we seem to have a conundrum with the idea of gravitational pressure, one side having much greater pressure than the other. Why do gravitons not burst out the top, resulting in particle collapse? It also begs the question as to why electrons are perfectly round, and not teardrop shaped:

http://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2011/05/28/free-electrons-perfectly-round-3/

Possibly, branes form at the top of an electron and reform in a spin flip.  These branes would be linked inside the particle so that they do not bust out, and may deflect some exiting gravitons at various angles. These branes may also help keep the electron round. Here we are designating “top” as away from the highest flux density of gravitons.

As far as isotropic fields, at this point we must say that it is designed internal to the proton or electron and is of consistent pattern.  The open field starts just outside the particle, so it is maintained that electric and magnetic fields transmit openly by “phase shift and chirality” or “phase shift and parity”.  The Coulomb force is considered instantaneous at reasonable distances:

http://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2014/05/30/quantum-entanglement/

It appears as though this is necessary, because then the speed that free gravitons travel at, the speed of light in a vacuum, does not effect the electric and magnetic fields generated.

No responses yet

Feb 09 2022

Core of an Electron or Proton

We can see from the calculation of the diameter of a free electron that as the density of the gravitational field goes down, the diameter increases.  This would be because of less gravitational pressure on the outside of the electron.

As gravitons enter a proton, electron, neutron, or nucleus, as conjugate waves or to take residence, the buildup takes on a fuzzy look that makes them look larger.  If we take a core diameter of 1.3335 x 10-15 m, the part that produces the fundamental charge, and add one graviton wavelength, we arrive at 5.30 x 10-15 m diameter, which is close to the classical diameter of the electron, 5.64 x 10-15 m *.  One graviton wavelength is used because one-half wavelength is on one side of the electron and one-half wavelength of a different graviton is on the other side.

We may call these outer layer gravitons tentacles or strings.  When nuclear fission occurs, the de Broglie wavelength of a neutron can come in at an angle where the strings on each entity hook and help pull the neutron into the nucleus. The cross section for this process is larger for slow neutrons vs fast neutrons in part because of the longer de Broglie wavelength.

* Jackson, J. D., Classical Electrodynamics, Third Edition, c. 1999 John David Jackson, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p. 695

No responses yet

Nov 14 2021

Greatest Lower Bound

One would guess that the particle physicists and quantum field theorists may like a 1.3335 x 10-15 m diameter of a free electron, because it is closer to a point particle than many estimates of the diameter.  It is possible that 1.3335 x 10-15 m is also the limit inferior of the sequence S137 to Sn in an atomic orbital.

The maximum diameter, on the other hand, will depend on the element and on the orbital.  At a spin flip, electrons in all orbitals may reduce to 1.3335 x 10-15 m, before taking off on a new trajectory and increasing in diameter again.  We cannot speak of a limit superior of the sequence of diameters of the electron in an atomic orbital nevertheless.  That will depend on the direction of electron travel, and on whether the atom is at the surface of the earth, or at some other planet.  For the latter, it depends on the density of the gravitational field.

We may also ask whether 1.3335 x 10-15 m is the greatest lower bound at all locations in the universe.  This raises the question of whether the fine structure constant is a universal constant, or whether or not the Coulomb gauge is the same everywhere.

2 responses so far

Jan 25 2021

Final Mediator

Going back to the April 2007 paper once again: “… and the same Coulomb force being the final mediator of the gravitational force as proposed, the mass energy of the proton appears to be integral to gravitational field action.”, we can go further back in history to examine the path of how we arrived at this place.

In the scientific community, the cause of gravity is by many still considered as unknown.  As Hughes-Hallett et al. puts it in relation to the gravitational force: “How does acceleration come about?  How does the velocity change?  Through the action of forces.  Newton placed a new emphasis on the importance of forces.  Newton’s laws of motion do not say what a force is, they say how it acts.” 1

Newton himself says in The Principia: “…considering in this treatise not the species of forces and their physical qualities but their quantities and mathematical proportions, as I have explained in the definitions.” 2  In Definition 8 Newton says: “This concept is purely mathematical, for I am not now considering the physical causes and sites of forces.” 3

Roger Cotes, Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge University wrote in his Editor’s Preface to the Second Edition of The Principia: “But will gravity be called an occult cause and be cast out of natural philosophy on the grounds that the cause of gravity itself is occult and not yet found?” 4  Electromagnetic waves were not yet discovered in 1713 when Cotes wrote this, so it is difficult to imagine how anyone could have discovered the cause of gravity back then.

1  Hughes-Hallet, Gleason, McCallum et al., Calculus, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005, p.304

2  Cohen, Whitman, Isaac Newton, The Principia, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, University of California Press, 1999, p. 588

3  Ibid., p. 407

4  Ibid,. p. 392

No responses yet

Dec 04 2019

Electric and Magnetic Fields

Jon Rogawski has a cool diagram and calculation using Faraday’s Law on page 979 of his Multivariable Calculus book*. The magnetic field around the straight wire with an alternating current flowing in it produces a voltage in an adjacent looped wire with no conventional energy applied except that from the other wire.

Of course this magnetic field, and likewise for electric fields, must have a pervasive field in which to transmit. One may say it transmits through the air, however Faraday’s law also applies in space.

These E and B fields transmit by turning and bending the E and B fields of the dense gamma rays.

* Rogawski, Jon, “Multivariable Calculus”, W. H. Freeman and Company, c. 2008

One response so far

Sep 09 2019

Atomic Stability

Published by under Classical Electrodynamics

Rutherford states that “Larmor has shown that the condition for no loss of energy by radiation is that the vector sum of the accelerations of all the component charged particles shall be permanently zero.  If this condition is not fulfilled there will be a steady drain of internal energy from the atom in the form of electromagnetic radiation, and unless this is balanced in some way by the absorption of energy from outside, the atom must ultimately become unstable and break up into a new system.” * (Rutherford references “Larmor:  Aether and Matter, p. 233”)

This is interesting in that by 1906 it was realized that radiation energy would need to be exchanged in order that atoms and molecules not collapse.  Even within the atom, by stating “vector sum” it is alluded that energy is exchanged.  Keep in mind that this was before the Bohr model of the atom.

In the next paragraph, Rutherford has:  “The positively and negatively charged particles constituting the atom must be so arranged as to form a stable aggregate under their forces of attraction and repulsion, and at the same time their arrangement and motions must be such that no energy is radiated from the atom.”

* E. Rutherford, Radioactive Transformations, Yale University, 1906, p. 262

One response so far

Feb 24 2016

Johnson–Fruechte Experiment

Produce a multiple layer wire wound coil around a roughly 2 inch diameter iron core, maybe 8 feet long. Set the cardboard tube from a roll of paper towels, on end, up on a shelf. Get as much capacitance as you can hooked up to the coil and charge up the capacitance. Aim the device at the top half of the cardboard tube, making sure the other end ‘sees’ terrestrial earth, and dump the capacitance all at once to produce a high value of current. Gravitons like to follow magnetic field lines, so one would see if the cardboard tube can be pulled over.

A software engineer across the hall from me, Jeff Johnson, who I have worked with for many years, came up with the idea of loading a lot of capacitance, and producing a high current by dumping it with one switch. The wire gauge would have to be figured out based on the current that would be produced.

No responses yet

Aug 14 2011

Topology of the Vacuum

Whether we are looking at nuclear fission or the results of scattering experiments, the way spin-parity assignments are often kept in order in nature would be similar to the cause of a de Broglie wavelength.  Rotational states ratchet through the gravitational flux, with potential wells rising and falling in one of the most fundamental of quantum phenomenons that exist.

During and shortly after high flux, high velocity hadron collisions at Fermilab or the CERN LHC nevertheless, some of the scattering resonances seen may be due to a blitz through the gravitational field, not organized very well in a manner, for example, such as an electric field.  The static we typically see in Goldhaber plots generated from hadron colliding experiments may in part be due to a cascade of momentum generated through the gravitational field.

Another evidence of the gravitational field is the Bohm-Aharonov effect.  As Ryder puts it, “the Bohm-Aharonov effect owes its existence to the non-trivial topology of the vacuum, and the fact that electrodynamics is a gauge theory.  In fact, it has recently been realized that the vacuum, in gauge theories, has a rich mathematical structure, with associated physical consequences,” ([1], pg 101).

Astronomically, and for the sake of history, it is somewhat reminiscent of the luminiferous aether.

Another concept related here is that “the configuration space of the vacuum is not simply connected.” ([1], pg 102)  When we speak of ‘one loop’ consequences, we can liken it to the Cauchy integral, which Greiner calls “The surprising statement of the integral formula (4.16), namely, that it is sufficient to know a function along a closed path to determine any function value in the interior,” ([2], pg 109).  For those more willing to trust the mathematicians for pure math, the Cauchy integral formula is presented in Brown and Churchill:

f(z) = (1/2πi) ∫ (1/(s-z)) f(s) ds                     ([3], pgs 166 and 429)

With “the gauge invariance of electrodynamics” ([1], pg 97), the perfect balance of charge that exists in the near universe, – possibly the entire universe, and the quantum steps of the Coulomb force by phonon transmission, the Bohm-Aharonov effect does indeed show us that there are physical consequences to the vacuum that are non-trivial, relating to the gravitational field in which the Bohm-Aharonov test and other tests are set up and run.

As a final thought, it is probable that planar electromagnetic waves would not turn into spherical electromagnetic waves were it not for traveling through a gravitational field.

 

[1] Ryder, Lewis H., Quantum Field Theory, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1996

[2] Greiner, Walter, Classical Electrodynamics, First German edition, Klassische Elektrodynamik, 1991 Verlag Harri Deutsch. 1998 Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

[3] Brown, James Ward and Churchill, Ruel V., Complex Variables and Applications, Eighth Edition, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009

No responses yet

Feb 07 2011

TGF’s

Checked the Fermi mission web site for the first time in weeks.  I had been waiting a long time to get information on what the GBM has been reading, and the Fermi article from 01.10.11 finally gives some information:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html

As some of you know, an explanation for terrestrial gamma-ray flashes is included in my April 2007 paper in the section entitled More on Synchronization.  The Fermi article refers to “strong electric fields” in the milliseconds before a lightning strike.  The fields result from areas of high voltage, which involve electrons in high concentration, which produce Compton scattered gravitons coming out of the earth.  The gravitons are down scattered to an energy where they are no longer gravitons, 511 keV according to the article.

The pattern of the scattered gamma rays, shown in magenta color in the article, is exactly what we would expect when gravitons are scattered in the milliseconds before a lightning strike in a TGF.

27 responses so far

Jan 15 2011

Permittivity of Free Space

It is interesting, to say the least, the way some of the constants of physics mix and match.  There are lots of examples of this in text books and on web sites, including this one, so there is no point in reiterating any now which do not relate specifically to this entry.

Some constants, nevertheless, turn out not to be constants, including the permittivity of free space, termed ε0.  At the surface of the earth, and at any point not far enough away to discern a difference, we have ε0 = 8.85 x 10-12 C2/(N-m2) when measured in a vacuum.  One of the ways in which the permittivity of free space relates to other physical entities is in the makeup of the Coulomb constant, k = 1/(4πε0), which is then also not really a constant in all locations, the difference relating to the local density of gravitons.

The speed of light in a vacuum can be written as: c = sqrt(k/km) = 1/sqrt(ε0 µ0) = 2.998 x 108 m/s, which is a constant throughout the universe.  One may be tempted to say then that µ0 is an inverse function to ε0 when evaluated at a given point, except that this is so unlikely with present understanding so as to be unimaginable.  Along with the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum in any reference frame, the fact that it equals 1/sqrt(ε0 µ0) in our locale can remain somewhat of a mystery.

No responses yet

Next »