Re: Lorentz on Electrostatic Self-Interaction
Date: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 @ 21:42:44 GMT
Topic: Science


In the hydrino yahoo list Don Hotson writes: Dear John,

I would like to suggest a new model of the 'orbitsphere' (perhaps so different that it warrants a different name) but which at least qualitatively solves many of the problems with Mills' 2D model. However it will take a bit of spadework.

The major unaddressed problem with SQM can be stated as 'What the hell are we standing on?' Take for instance the hydrogen atom, and blow it up to solar system size. If the proton were the size of the sun, the (still a point!) electron would not even orbit within the solar system--it would be 20 times as far from the sun as Pluto. That this point-electron can exclude everything else from this immense sphere is beyond strange.

(An 'extended' electron hardly solves this problem.) To say this exclusion is the result of some mystical 'possibility wave' is blatant hand-waving. However Mills' 2D soap bubble is hardly better. Even aside from its interaction problems, how could such a structure resist the immense forces necessary to cause it to become 'degenerate'?

My proposed solution requires but a single, large assumption: that the Dirac equation means what it says, not what QED has misinterpreted it to say. Dirac's equation has four roots: it calls for electrons and positrons of positive energy, and electrons and positrons (or at least + and - charges) of negative energy. Adopting a kinetic definition of energy gives an unequivocal answer to the question 'what is negative energy?' In this definition, almost mandated by the Lorentz relationships, energy is the motion of charges; mass is a harmonic (standing wave) motion of charges.

Virtually every equation of QM (including the Dirac) includes 'i', which calls for the function to extend into an 'imaginary' direction. In this kinetic definition, 'positive' energy would be the motion of charges in a 'real' direction; negative energy would be the motion of charges in some 'imaginary' direction.

According to QM, every ionic charge is immediately surrounded by infinite numbers of electron-positron pairs. ('Epos'). (They call them 'virtual', but there is no excuse for this qualifier, especially since these epos are required to account for the most precise measurement in all of physics, the magnetic 'g' factor.) With an ionic electron, the positron ends of the pairs surround the electron. But this unbalances the epo, causing another epo to attach to it, ad infinitum, causing chains of epos to stretch from each negative ion to some positive ion, forming the EM field. (For a diagram, see p. 58 of my Dirac articles, published in 'Infinite Energy' issues 43 and 44, available at or . This is the only causal, direct-contact model of the EM field of which I am aware.)

The gross violation of conservation involved in these infinite numbers of epos is removed if they are not 'created', as QM says they are, but merely 'raised in state' from negative to positive energies from Dirac's sea of negative-energy epos. Vibrating in one 'real' dimension, they would have no inertia, or mass. (This also directly explains 'Zero-Point Energy' (ZPE) which calls explicitly for this 'sea'.) Since the energy is directed in 'imaginary' directions, this explains why it is seldom directly measurable--but its effects are everywhere, not the least of them being that the 'vacuum' has at least half a dozen measurable properties. Each epo would be a boson--and a below-zero sea of bosons would form a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC). That 'our reality' is immersed in a vast BEC explains a great deal.

Plasma physicists point out that the universe is 99.999% plasma, 'solid matter' making up less than .001%. The stars, galaxies, and interstellar gas are all plasmas. Plasma is the 'natural state'; we are the far-out exceptions. And plasmas follow their own rules, many of their characteristics being similar to those of a BEC, exhibiting self-organization, being excellent conductors, superfluid, and non-local. I suggest that these characteristics are derived from the underlying BEC.

However I suggest we can eliminate that .001%. When an electron is 'captured' by a proton, I suggest that it supplies the 'order parameter', the phase angle which allows it to construct a crystalline structure (BEC) of epos surrounding the proton, all pulled up from the negative-energy 'sea'. This BEC would embody colletively the electron's attributes (every part of a BEC must have a single wave function, that of the electron) with a chain of epos everywhere the Schroedinger equation would suggest the 'possibility' of the electron's presence. This would form an immensely strong roughly spherical structure, + and - charges alternating, perhaps similar to a crystal formed by an ionic salt. It would be very resistant to deformation, and would explain along the way such mysteries as the 'exclusion principle'.

It seems to me that this would be an 'orbitsphere' composed of real substance. I suggest that everywhere QM calls for a 'psi wave', instead of its being, in Einstein's phrase, a 'spukhafte Fernwirkungen' or a spooky 'ghost wave', it is actually a physical, causal structure of epos formed into a BEC.

If a single assumption can solve many problems, I suggest it is at least worth some consideration. And this assumption solves many of them. (See my Dirac articles, above, for more.)

Best,

Don Hotson
---------

--- "John A.Kassebaum" wrote:

I again admit that I see no way to explain away electromagnetic self-interaction using Gauss's or Coulomb's laws on the Millsian orbitsphere. I remain hopeful that a constructive argument about the nature of the charge making up the orbitsphere may yet admit or explain the (necessary) missing electrostatic self-interaction. Without such an argument, if you consider the OS to be a continuum
(or constellation) of charge held in a spherical geometry in a euclidian space-time, then you must also conclude that it *should* have electrostatic (as well as electrodynamic) self-interaction. I have sought for some kind of electrodynamic or space-time conservation argument that would allow alternative explanations, but I currently have no argument beyond speculation with which to refute this attack on the Millsian OS at this time.

BTW - I do still believe the electrostatic self-interaction of the planar free electron to be explainable due to force balance with electrodynamic forces. Perhaps this would be a more fruitful ground for discussion. Examples of this missing self-interaction are seen experimentally in two-dimensional electron gasses. As far as I can tell, this particular argument - supporting the free electron - cannot be extended to the bound electron OS.

- John A. Kassebaum, P.E.






This article comes from ZPEnergy.com
http://www.zpenergy.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1196