This forum is about our new **Intermittent Electron Theory** that has been recently published

in Physics Essays:

The Theory of Intermittent Electrons

April 2020 Update Edit:

Announcing Four New Videos:

**New Wisdom ****Unifies**** Physics!**

These four videos explain the paper, "* The Theory of Intermittent Electrons*" and this forum.

("*A video says a 1,000,000 words*").

So here they are. Get busy watching them and then commenting right here!

**Episode 1: The X-Ray Frequency Limit!**

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

**Episode 2: The PhotoElectric Effect!**

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

**Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 1)**

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

**Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 2)**

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

Finally, I am working on the final unifying video:

**Episode 4: Gravity!**

It will be done this year. You will have to wait in suspense to see how this theory unifies Physics.

But it is coming!

Note: If you have a slow internet connection you can download these videos directly to your computer

from Google Drive and watch them locally on your computer.

You can then put them on a thumb drive and give the videos to your friends and tell them to come here

and comment on them!

Now... Back to the original 2007 thread:

Here are the biggest problems with QM as I see it and the solution to these problems:

**1) The Photoelectric Paradox.**

The photoelectric effect setup for a 10 eV UV "photon" is like this:

A UV "photon" is incident on a metal plate with an energy of approximately 10 eV. An electron with the max energy is ejected with an energy of approximately

E_{max} = hv - Ф = 10 eV - 3 eV = 1.12 x 10^{-18} J

This implies that the photoelectron has a momentum of , or

|P_{e}| = 270 |P_{UV}|

Check the arithmetic yourself. This is no arithmetic error. The photoelectron ends up with 270 times the momentum of the UV "photon". Think about this for a moment...

Now, it is possible for QM theory to conserve momentum in this case by giving the metal plate a huge momentum in the "backwards" direction. This is how QM must respond. The metal plate recoils with a large momentum in the "backwards" direction, away from the photoelectron:

Just how the "photon" in QM theory gives the metal plate such a large momentum in the transverse direction is not exactly clear, and a little doubtful in my opinion. However, this is not all.

It is also fairly well known that the most likely angle for the electron ejection is at 90^{o}. See

Phys. Rev. 37 (1931): Milton A. Chaffee - The Angular Distribution of...

The electron can actually absorb a "photon" and be ejected in a direction greater than 90 degrees heading back to where the "photon" came from. How can the "photon knock the electron backwards" through absorption? This just does not make sense, and this does not seem like a particle absorption. This phenomena seems like a transverse electric force reaction, plain and simple. If this is the case, then the polarization of the wave must come into play:

If I am correct, then the UV light that is polarized perpendicular to the metal plate will eject electrons much more readily than UV light polarized in the horizontal plane. (We will see how this works later).

And indeed, this is the case!

**Evidence of Vectorial Photoelectric Effect on Copper**

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3703&context=lbnl

QuoteQuoted from

Evidence of Vectorial Photoelectric Effect on Copper

"The QE dependence on angle of incidence and light polarization is a long standing problem [4–8] that largely remains to be understood."

"A QE enhancement is found for light with electric field perpendicular to the sample’s surface, showing a vectorial photoelectric effect."

**We see that Quantum Mechanics has absolutely failed here with this new information!**

It appears that the polarization of the wave must be brought into consideration, but QM has treated this as a particle interaction. Bohr's Principle of Complementarity does not allow the wave nature to be brought in:

QuoteQuoted from

Neils Bohr

"a single quantum mechanical entity can either behave as a particle or as wave, but never simultaneously as both."

And since "photons" in QM theory are circularly polarized with a "spin" equal to 1, this portion of the theory has failed in this paradox as well, as vertically polarized EM radiation is required to solve this paradox!

What is required is a new theory which we will see in a moment.

**2) The Bremsstrahlung Paradox.**

The setup for a 25 KeV x-ray machine is like this:

X-rays are emitted when 25 KeV electrons are blasted onto a metal plate. The electrons enter the surface and bounce around, probably thousands or millions of times like "Ricochet Rabbit", emitting radiations of all frequencies up to a cutoff frequency, called the Bremsstahlung Cutoff Frequency, in all directions. According to QM, this maximum frequency is given by the energy of a "photon" with energy given by:

But does this really make sense?

Suppose that an x-ray "photon" with almost the maximum frequency is given off. This implies the following scenario:

Think about this scenario for a moment. To have an interaction that creates a "photon" with nearly the max energy, a single interaction must nearly stop the electron and produce the max energy "photon".

But these are conservative Coulomb fields that the electron is interacting with. If an electron comes in for a close encounter with a nucleus or another electron, it leaves the encounter with approximately the same speed that it came in with. We know this from scattering experiments. A single encounter that stops the incoming electron is just not feasible. It's just not going to happen. It's probably going to take millions of deflections to stop the electron. Check it yourself.

So again, Quantum Mechanics has failed. A single interaction to mostly stop the Bremsstahlung electron is just not feasible.

(What really is happening comes later)

**3) Electron Spin**

It was in the latter part of the last century that electrons were discovered to be smaller than 10^{-15} cm from electron scattering experiments. This was a problem because it then became impossible for the electron to have a magnetic moment without it's surface velocity exceeding the speed of light. So the statement in modern physics is that:

**"Electron spin is not something spinning".**

Many 1st year QM students do this calculation. But there is another problem with electron spin that has surfaced. Recall that magnetic moments precess in a magnetic field. There are many instances in modern physics where this is used. However, it is known that a precessing magnetic moment would radiate. Whenever there are time dependent fields, there is radiation. Whenever there is an acceleration involving charges, there is radiation. Precessing magnetic moments radiate, that's all there is to it. But atomic electrons do not radiate in a magnetic field. Hence, it seems to me that electrons probably do not have a magnetic moment, and hence do not have angular momentum. So we now have two oxymorons:

**"Electron spin is not something spinning".
"Electron magnet moment is not a moment."**

A point particle just cannot have "something spinning", and a point particle cannot have a "moment" of any kind.

This is just not acceptable to the purely logical mind, and if you will open it, you will see that this New Theory is much better.

One thing unique to QM theory is its invention of the wave-particle paradox. It seemed like wave-particle duality was necessary because the evidence was mounting for the baffling behavior of both light and electrons. In particular, the most baffling of these was the low intensity double slit experiment. Look on the net and see that this experiment is still being argued around after nearly a century.

The double slit output:

Questions:

2) How can the "photon" interfere with itself it if it just goes through one slit?

The first myth that needs to be cleared up is cleared up with the following statement:

Many QM books have pictures of film dots accumulating like the above picture. Well consider this:

For 200 ISO film, minimum blackening is .004 lux-sec, or 0.04 millijoules/cm². See:

Radiometry and photometry in astronomy

So take 1% of this minimum blackening illumination, and consider 0.0004 mJ/cm². This illumination is below the threshold of the film. In other words, this illumination is so weak that no dots are formed on the film. Now, one visible "photon" has an energy of about

2 x 10

If you do the division, you get that about 200 trillion "photons" can strike a cm² of the film without producing a film dot. Think about this for a moment. 200 Trillions-worth of "photon-energy" can strike a cm² of the film and not produce a single film-dot. So these pictures, like the one above, in first year QM books are a serious exaggeration.

So what would happen if an extremely low intensity wave were incident on some ISO 200 speed film? Well, film has tiny silver bromide crystals. These crystals must have crystal defects, or they are not light sensitive at all. So a lot of light could hit these crystals with no effect.

But some crystals have defects, some with more defects than others. These are the most light sensitive crystals. These "most sensitive" crystals are randomly distributed across the film. When the incident light wave intensity just reaches the threshold for film-dot production, it is these "most sensitive" crystals that are randomly activated first. This random activation of the "most sensitive" crystals would start to make a pattern like that seen in figure 5.25A from being struck by a low intensity wave.

A low intensity wave incident on film would produce the patterns seen in the above figure because the film is discrete crystals.

No harm done, you say as you consider yourself an advanced physicist? OK, then let's move on to the next best "one-photon-at-a-time" claim, photomultipliers. The double slit can be done with supposedly "one-photon-at-a-time" photomultipliers:

http://www.wm.edu/physics/SeniorThesis2005/TarSeniorThesis.pdf

Quote"The polarizing filters are used to cut the light down to an intensity low enough that only one photon is in the apparatus at a time. . . Using the detector slit, the photomultiplier tube measures photon counts at different positions of the screen. Counts can be plotted with respect to X and the interference pattern constructed."

The same myth needs to be cleared with the following statement:

**One photomultiplier tick ≠ One "photon" detection.**

The same reasoning applies to this apparatus. Photomultipliers, like any detection device (be it film, digital camera, etc) has a threshold illumination below which no detection takes place. For example, take the photomultiplier tube in the above paper, with, for example, a blocking area of 10 μm². put it 1 meter away from the double slit and set the crossed polarizers so that the illumination is so low that the photomultiplier ticks once per second. Now move that photomultiplier 100 meters away from the double slit, and increase the blocking area proportionately so it is looking down the same solid angle.

Theoretically, according to QM, the same number of photons going down the solid angle at one meter will still be going down the solid angle at 100 meters. So the number of ticks supposedly will be the same. Wrong, the intensity at 100 meters is so low that the photomultiplier will not record one tick per second. It will record nothing but noise. Not convinced? Try it yourself. Next, try moving the photomultiplier a kilometer away and see if it will tick while looking down the same solid angle.

Again, to the purely logical mind, wave-particle paradox is not acceptable, and if there is a better way, the purely logical mind would be open to it.

Next, consider "one-electron-at-a-time" double slit experiments in a electron microscope. Here are A. Tonomura's photos:

http://modelofreality.org/ElectronInterfere.png

http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/rd/moviee/doubleslite-n.wmv

Look familiar? Well, they had to use film in this experiment as well. Again, the myth needs to be cleaned up by this statement:

**One film dot ≠ One electron detection.**

Many electrons can strike a film crystal with no crystal defects and produce no dots. In addition, "cross-the-gap" high voltage currents tend to surge. They build up on the electron gun tip, surge across the gap as a group, then start to build up again. Think about a thunderstorm and lightning. A huge charge builds up in the clouds at high voltage. Does it flow smoothly across-the-gap to the ground? No! There are plenty of electrons to interfere with each other as they high voltage surge "across-the-gap" like a lightning strike.

These one-particle-at-a-time claims are not realistic. QM is not needed to explain wave particle duality, and again, if a more logical explanation were available, the truly open mind would at least look at it.

**5) Quantum Entanglement.**

The famous EPR paper started it all. (Einstein, Podalski, & Rosen). Then came J.S. Bell's paper and his now famous "Bell's Inequality". And finally Alain Aspect's experiments using Bell's Inequality applied to "photons". The bottom line of all this came to the QM concept that:

Bell's Inequality places restrictions on probabilities based on local realities. Since Bell's inequality is violated, then local reality is impossible.

So now we will have a discussion about raw logic. In mathematics if we have a hypothesis and come to a point in its proof where we get:

**4+1 ≠ 5**

Well, we simply abandon the hypothesis as incorrect. Like electron spin. Electron spin was hypothesized by two graduate students in 1925. Later we found out that

**Electron Spin ≠ Something Spinning**

So likewise in this case, we need to abandon the electron spin hypothesis as incorrect. BUT! The spin Nobel Prize has already been awarded and one must not say that this Nobel Prize is wrong. (Even though a purely logical mind might be tempted).

So here we find ourselves with yet another QM oxymoron:

**Local Reality ≠ Reality**

So we start out with a hypothesis about photon polarizations and find that there is no reality. So if you ask Mr. Vulcan, just based on pure logic, he will say that there is some hypothesis that needs to be abandoned.

Which one?

The Photon Hypothesis needs to be abandoned. The only reason it has not been abandoned until now is that there has not been a suitable replacement. Now there is.

**6) Renormalization.**

The electron's mass-energy is roughly 1/2 MeV. This mass-energy is the amount contained in a static electric field emanating from a charge with a radius roughly

r_{c} = 2x10^{-13} cm

An electron, however, is known to be more like

r_{e} = 2x10^{-15} cm

or smaller. The electric field energy from such a small particle is roughly 50 MeV. This is troublesome to say the least. If the resultant mass-energy of the electron is indeed just 1/2 MeV, then the mass function for a static electron must go negative below this "classical electron radius".

So once again we have a logical contradiction:

**A static electron's actual size < minimum permitted size**

So how has QM handled this paradox? With Renormalization. Renormalization is a process where one is faced with infinities in equations. To rid these infinities, one plays games so that a +∞ integral can cancel out a -∞ integral. A Nobel Prize was actually awarded to Gerardus 't Hooft for a particularly clever way to cancel infinities. But listen to what the famous physicist Paul Dirac had to say about renormalization:

QuoteQuoted from

Paul Dirac

"I am very disturbed by the situation because the so-called good theory quantum theory does involve neglecting infinities in an arbitrary way. This is not sensible. Sensible Mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it's small; not because it's infinitely great and we do not want it."

As soon as he started to criticize the mainstream for illogic, he was out of there. It appears that raw logic will not necessarily advance your physics career.

Next, listen to what the inventor of renormalization had to say about it:

QuoteQuoted from

Richard Feynman

"But no matter how clever the word, it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent."

"I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."

So again we are faced with the raw logic of having to abandon some hypothesis. The point particle electron is logically inconsistent. But which hypothesis do we abandon?

Well, we have only one choice.

The static electron viewpoint must be abandoned. Raw logic dictates that the structure of the electron must be dynamic. A static negative mass function cannot be possible. We shall abandon the static electron for a New Theory with a dynamic electron structure!

**7) A better theory is now possible.**

So we now have the fundamental criteria for the new theory.

1) The electron's structure must be dynamic.

2) It must cover the photoelectric effect.

3) It must cover the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency.

4) It must have stable, nonradiating atoms, especially in a B field.

5) It must allow for electron interference.

6) It must allow for Compton Scattering, Hydrogen Spectra, etc. . .

The first four fundamental criteria give us no choice but to insist that an electron be a pulsating particle.

That is, an electron turns its electric field ON and OFF. And its does so according to De Broglie:

The faster an electron in accelerated, the faster it pulsates:

When the electron is ON, it is susceptible to a greater force in an electric field than when it is off. ( the justification for all this exists. Later . . . )

This pulsating particle scenario allows for a stable, nonradiating atom:

Why does this atom not radiate? Because radiation comes from accelerating charges. The electron is only accelerated

while it is OFF. When it is ON, it travels in a straight line. Hence, this atom will not radiate.

Now for the fascinating parts.

**The photoelectric effect.**

Consider a free electron in a metal, pulsating with a certain frequency. When visible light is incident on the electron, what does it do?

**Remember this: If an electron is static, then when an oscillating electric force hits the electron, it simply moves up and down going nowhere.**

However, this is not true if the electron is pulsating. If the electron is pulsating just right, it might take off either up or down. This depends on the correlation of electron pulsation frequency with the light. If the electron is ON in phase with the peaks of the light wave, then the electron ill simply go UP and DOWN, also going nowhere. However, if the electron is ON only during the UP part of the light wave, and OFF during the DOWN part of the light wave, then the electron will move upwards very rapidly. It is influenced less by the down part of the light wave, since the electron is OFF! So the electron is accelerated upwards.

Now the electron pulsations start to quicken according to De Broglie:

(the factor of ½ will become clear later) The electron starts to pulsate faster and faster until it no longer is in phase with just the UP part of the light wave. When it becomes fast enough so that the electron is ON in phase with both peaks of the wave, the acceleration is over. The electron returns to just going UP and DOWN in its co-moving inertial frame. **A non-acceleration resonance has occurred!** This resonance occurs at the moment that ½ the electron's De Broglie frequency reaches the frequency of the light wave. The electron stops accelerating when

or when

Stop and imagine this for a moment. Packets of energy hν_{light} given to a charged particle without "photons"! No momentum considerations!

**And finally take note:** This pulsating theory succeeds in explaining the vectorial photoelectric effect while **Quantum Mechanics fails.**

**Next, the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency.**

Imagine that a 25 KeV electron collides with a metal plate and goes through the following motion:

For a brief moment in the diagram above, the Bremsstrahlung electron goes through an oscillitory motion with a period of about 1x10^{-18} seconds. This is certainly possible, as almost any random motion would be possible to imagine. Thus, the electron must briefly radiate with a frequency of 1x10^{18} Hz. There is just no logical way around this. And this radiation's frequency is below the limiting ν_{max}=E/h. You want a 25 keV electron to radiate at a certain frequency below the limit? Well, just move it back and forth at a lower frequency, and it must radiate at this frequency. No way around it.

So the question again becomes:

If the electron gets moved back and forth at a frequency higher than the limit, then why doesn't it radiate at this frequency?

The answer is the Nyquist Frequency Limit. Here is a simple explanation. Lets say that a Bremsstrahlung electron goes through the following motion:

January 2014 Edit: Here is another (better) animation explaining the Nyquist limit:

https://modelofreality.org/16.html

where we have included in the diagram where the Bremsstrahlung electron has pulsed ON proportional to De Broglie. We see that since the movement frequency is less than the De Broglie frequency, then the motion and radiation approximate what we usually associate with an oscillating charge. The radiation frequency closely approximates the movement frequency. No surprise here.

But now lets say that the Bremsstrahlung electron gets moved around much more radically with a much higher movement frequency, like this

We see that the movement frequency is much higher than the pulsation frequency, and the radiation cannot be generated at this frequency. The charge is "OFF" during much of the acceleration. Thus, the radiation cannot follow the movement, and the radiation is aliased down to a lower frequency. This emitted frequency limit is called the Nyquist frequency limit. It is half the electron pulsation frequency. (hence the factor of ½).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

Now this Nyquist frequency chopping is different than frequency modulation. Here is the difference:

If you modulate a frequency at 10^{22} Hz with a frequency of 10^{18} Hz, the resultant frequency is basically still at 10^{22} Hz.

The modulated wave still acts like a 10^{22} Hz wave, while the chopped wave aliases back down to 10^{18} Hz.

For example, if the modulated wave went through a Bragg diffraction crystal lattice (x-ray spectrometer), it would still act like a 10^{22} Hz wave. But if the chopped wave went through, it would act like a 10^{18} Hz wave.

So back to the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency. If an electron were pulsating at a certain frequency and generating radiation, we would expect the radiation to be limited to ½ that frequency. The Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency!

So imagine this for a moment. We have gotten a Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency without using photons, while even allowing for thousands of bumps and ricochets!

This is a much more logical explanation, and I hope you will open your purely logical mind to it.

**The Hydrogen Spectra**

Recall that this new theory has allowed us to have stable, nonradiating electron orbits.

These orbits do not radiate because the electron is not accelerated while it is ON. We must conclude that the requirement that the electron only be ON while the proton is OFF establishes only certain allowed orbits. If the electron deviates from these allowed orbits, then it will be ON while the proton is ON, and in this case, it will radiate energy. This radiation friction and the huge increase in the force between them will disrupt the trajectory until the electron returns to an allowed orbit.

The advantage of this pulsating model for the hydrogen atom is that the frequency of emitted electromagnetic radiation actually exists within the atom. In all physical systems, the system’s resonant frequencies actually exist within the system! That is, something is vibrating at these frequencies! In the Schrodinger theory for the hydrogen atom, the electron is normally in a ground state which is actually spherically symmetric and static! The Schrodinger/Born picture has resonant frequencies which do not exist in their static system.

We start the new scenario by assuming that the electron orbits are quasi-circular (not necessarily the case, but most likely). Let ve be the unknown De Broglie frequency of the pulsating electron for some allowed orbit. Let v_{p} be the De Broglie frequency for the proton. Then for stable, quasi-circular orbits we must have

or

where T_{p} and T_{e} are the proton's/electron’s pulsation periods and n_{p} and n_{e} are integers. This condition keeps the electron in sync with the proton so that they never are ON at the same time.

Since the electron’s allowed orbits only have the proton’s E field ON while the electron is in its OFF state, the average electric force between them may be different than the time averaged Coulomb’s Law. We write

where mV²/r is is the average centripetal force on the electron, and k’ is some fraction of the normal Coulomb force constant.

Next, we assume that the resonant frequencies of the hydrogen atom are simply the orbital frequencies of the electrons in their allowed orbits. That is, if an electron in a hydrogen atom were subject to a force that perturbed it, then it would tend to radiate electromagnetic energy that was at these resonant orbital frequencies. Conversely, if electromagnetic radiation were incident on an atomic electron at its resonant orbital frequency, then the atom would start to absorb energy from the resonant wave.

To get the approximate radii of the corresponding electron orbits, we set V= rω

where ω is the orbital angular frequency of the electron. Solving for ω we get

Substituting in the empirical Rydberg relation gives:

The general trend in this new scenario is exact opposite that of Bohr’s atom. In Bohr’s theory, the 6th orbit corresponds to 36r_{o} (r_{o}=Bohr radius of .53A) , or about 19 angstroms. It seems unlikely that such a large orbit would play much of a part in the Lyman series. But the (1,6) Lyman spectral line is strong.

So in this new scenario, the higher the resonant orbital frequency, the smaller the orbital radius.

In this new scenario, these are the actual radii of the electronic orbits, with the exact orbital frequencies being the same as the resonant light frequencies:

**Orbital Electron Frequencies = Hydrogen Spectrum Frequencies**

So if you heat hydrogen gas, or run a current through it, these orbits will be perturbed. These perturbations will disturb the orbits so that the electrons are accelerated while ON, and hence they will **start to radiate at their natural frequencies!**

It cannot be stressed enough here. **These natural frequencies exist within the atom and these natural frequencies are stimulated by perturbations, just like all physical systems with resonances.**

In order to keep the new theory's explanation simple, I have neglected to even mention the hydrogen molecule.

Here is how this new pulsating model views the hydrogen molecule:

**The Hydrogen Molecule and the Reality-Based Covalent Bond**

It is now much easier to understand the hydrogen molecule. Hydrogen is a magnetic dipole. It is attracted to other hydrogen atom like two magnets are attracted to each other. From a distance, the hydrogen atom appears electrically neutral. The magnetic forces still exist, though. Thus, two hydrogen atoms would be pulled towards each other with a relatively small magnetic force until the Coulomb forces come into play. If a collision occurs with a small enough separation distance, an H2 molecule is formed by Coulomb forces.

A stable hydrogen molecule can be constructed using Coulomb attraction as shown in the figure. The two electrons circulate in the same direction in between the two protons, their separation vectors forming two equilateral triangles.

The four pulsating particles are synchronized, allowing only for certain electron orbits so that the stable molecule does not radiate. We finally are able to see a reality-based covalent bond! The two electrons are shared by and are in between the two hydrogen nuclei.

So I believe that when you run a current through hydrogen gas, it is the molecular hydrogen spectra that you are seeing. This would make sense because the majority of the hydrogen gas is in the diatomic molecular state. So the relative proportions of how the electrons are distributed into the orbitals is predicted by the absorption spectrum of hydrogen. Since the Lyman series is the only series seen in the absorption spectrum of hydrogen, then one would suspect that the electrons would be distributed across the Lyman orbitals at room temperature. (And not mostly in one ground state). The relative intensities of the Lyman absorption spectrum would be proportional to how many electrons were in each Lyman orbital (of molecular hydrogen).

Energy conservation is fascinating in this pulsating theory. On the macroscopic level, all the pulsations of gazillions of particles time-average to Coulomb's Law, and everything is as expected. But on the microscopic level we have tunneling in this theory! Suppose the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is momentarily OFF. Then at that moment, the electron can be quickly moved to a higher orbit without much energy being expended. The electron can "tunnel" to a higher orbit while the nucleus is OFF! So, for example, during collisions with spectrometer current-electrons, the hydrogen's electrons can be moved to different orbits sometimes without having to fight the full centripetal nuclear Coulomb forces.

And when a spectrometer electron collides with the hydrogen electrons, the electrons become "out of sync" with the nuclei, and radiation results. This radiation is at the frequency of electron revolution. This radiation causes "radiation friction". This friction cannot last forever, as the electrons start to feel the nuclear forces while they are ON. Something will change. The orbits will either change or the electrons will decay into the nuclei. Since we do not see spontaneous neutron production, it is safe to assume that the orbitals change back to stable orbits, with or without tunneling.

**Electron Interference**

This pulsating model for electrons allows a more reasonable picture for electron interference. Here is the setup:

We have already discussed how high voltage cross-the-gap-currents tend to surge. So a pulse of

coherent electrons emerges from the tip of the electron gun. They make their way towards the positively charge

filament, pulsating in unison since they are coherent. Now when they are bent around the filament, the two sides will

cross in only one place. If the electrons are ON when they cross, a tremendous repulsive force will keep them from

continuing on their way, and they will not strike the film on their original path (a minimum). If the electrons are OFF

when they cross, they will continue on to the screen and hit the film on their original path (a maximum).

This New Theory covers all the fundamentals of microscopic physics. It is hoped that our logical minds

can simply take this a new theory as something that can just be tried and tested, no big deal.

Andrew A. Gray

]]>

]]>

It’s not anything else.

They say that force is mass times acceleration.

That’s wrong.

Force was invented by Isaac Newton.

Newton never heard of energy.

Newton didn’t know what he was doing.

My website is www.danielzimmer.com

]]>
*Due to the mathcode still not operational, I will post the codes of my equations but I'll link at the end to a paper which displays my work. I am the sole author of this work, all rights are reserved to me. *

**Elastic Action: A Wedding of Quantum Field Theory with the General Relativiatic Action**

This tackles a question on how Sakharov's ground state field for virtual particles enters the gravitational action. In it I conclude that maybe the cosmological constant is in fact a renormalization constant which is only set to zero for flat Euclidean spacetime. The jury is still out, but most respected astrophysicists tend to agree that while spacetime looks quite flat, it probably isn't exactly flat, it's just a very good approximation and his equations on a cosmological scale would predict a small curve like we expect.

Let's identify variables

A - action

g - metric

x - variable spatial coordinate

c - speed of light

\mathbf{R} - invariant Ricci curvature tensor

\hbar - Planck constant, reduced

G - Newtons constant

k - wave number

* We will use \mathbf{k} as a constant \frac{8πG}{c^4} which is the upper value of the gravitational constant

In the style of Sakharov, we'd like to write a Langrangian of the ground state fluctuations which has a contribution of geometry by off-shell virtual particles.

It's a rare paper to find, but his original ideas can be found here:

His equation features like:

\mathcal{L} = \mathbf{R}\ \hbar c\ k\ \int dk + \mathbf{R}^2\ \hbar c\ \int \frac{dk}{k} + C

Where C is a constant and

\frac{dk}{k} = d\log_e k \approx 137

His original ideas can be taken as a precursor to Bogoliubov transformations used to describe how gravity jiggles these off-shell particles at the horizon of supermassive Black holes, owing to their name as Hawking radiation.

So how do we do this? How does Sakharov's equation enter the action? It turns out there are a number of different ways we can do it and all are equally interesting.

**Varied Action**

Using the formulation set above, we now can apply the varied action.

\delta A = \frac{\int d^4x}{\mathbf{k}}\ \left[\delta\mathcal{L}\sqrt{-g} + \mathcal{L}\delta(\sqrt{-g})\right]

We can simplify the second term using the variation of the determinant of the metric tensor:

\delta(\sqrt{-g}) = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}

substitution gives

\delta A = \frac{\int d^4x}{\mathbf{k}} \left[\delta\mathcal{L}\sqrt{-g} + \mathcal{L}\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}\right)\right]

And yes, the Langrangian is split up into parts such that when we write out the Sakharov Langrangian. For instance, let us now use

\mathcal{L} = \mathbf{R}\ \hbar c\ k\ \int dk + \mathbf{R}^2\ \hbar c\ \int \frac{dk}{k}

Plugging the Langrangian density in we get:

\delta A = \frac{\int d^4x}{\mathbf{k}}[\delta( \mathbf{R}\hbar c\ k\int dk + \mathbf{R}^2\hbar c\ \int \frac{dk}{k}) \sqrt{-g}

+ \frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{R}\hbar c\ k \int dk + \mathbf{R}^2\hbar c\ \int \frac{dk}{k}) \sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}]\frac{16 \pi G}{c^4}

We just want to focus on how this altered the dimensions and how we must fix those dimensions. Focusing on this,

\mathbf{R}\ \hbar c\ k dk

We know what R is as it's dimensions are still inverse length squared. The k is called the wave number and has inverse unit of length. All-in-all, we have dimensions of charge squared divided by a length, giving an energy, further with another inverse length cubed, giving the appropriate dimensions of energy density. What we "put in" those brackets, must be undone, and there's a straight-forward way to do it. We don't need to "undo" what we have in since it already features in the action, but we will concentrate on

\hbar c\ k\ \int dk = \frac{\hbar c}{\ell^2}

We understand that the following dimensions must hold true:

\frac{G}{c^2} \equiv \frac{\ell}{m}

Since dimensionally-speaking

\frac{\hbar c}{\ell^2} = \frac{Gm^2}{\ell^2}

Then we can decompose it in the following way:

\frac{Gm}{\ell^2} = \frac{Gm}{\ell}\frac{c^2}{G} = \frac{m}{\ell} \cdot c^2 = \frac{c^4}{G}

Interesting isn't it? It seems then the solution has been found. In order to "undo" what we did, it requires a correction coefficient of the upper limit of gravity as \frac{c^4}{G} (by taking its inverse). Why its inverse? Simply because if

\frac{\hbar c}{\ell^2} = \frac{Gm^2}{\ell^2} = \frac{c^4}{G}

Then we must invert to remove these unwanted dimensions.

**Dimensions Check**

\mathbf{k}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}=2.08\times 10^{-43}\text{N}^{-1}

So \frac{1}{\mathbf{k}} has the dimension of a force.

Considering this you get the dimension of

dx\ dy\ dz\ dt \frac{1}{\mathbf{k}}\mathbf{R}

as

\text{m}^3\cdot\text{s}\cdot\text{N} \cdot\text{m}^{-2}=\text{J}\cdot\text{s}

which is the dimension of an action as it should be, which is force times length times time, or energy times time.

**Stress Energy**

Sakharov intended to speak about fluctuations as a conteibution to the background spacetime. Loosely-speaking that means his Langrangian density must have to translate into the stress energy tensor. We can express this as:

If you define T^{\mu\nu} explicitly, by writing

\delta S = -\int d^dx \sqrt{g}\, T^{\mu\nu} \delta g_{\mu\nu}

Where

T^{\mu\nu}=-\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta S_m}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}

where S_m is the matter action

S_m =\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\mathcal{L}_m

and \mathcal{L}_m is the matter Lagrangian-density. It's important that we include the definition of the stress energy so that we can build a healthy picture of the stress energy contribution of the fluctuations to the background geometry. We shall do this now. A proportional way to speak about the stress energy tensor is the following

T^{\mu\nu}= -\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta \mathcal{L}\sqrt{g}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}

Rearranging we get

T^{\mu\nu}\sqrt{-g}\ \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -2\delta \mathcal{L}\sqrt{g}

It will be this form from which we derive the following results. The factor of 2 looks a bit peculiar, but for arguments sake it could be dropped at any time.

**Second Varied Action**

Earlier I argued that the stress energy must be encorporates somehow into Sakharovs vision. We see now how this directly comes about since in uts contracted form the relationship is simply \mathbf{G} = \mathbf{k} \mathbf{T}, such that we have:

\delta A = \frac{\int d^4x}{\mathbf{k}}[\delta( \mathbf{R}\hbar c\ k\int dk + \mathbf{R}^2 \hbar c\ \int \frac{dk}{k}) \sqrt{-g}

+ \frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{R}\hbar c\ k\int dk + \mathbf{R}^2\hbar c\ \int \frac{dk}{k}) \sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}]\frac{16 \pi G}{c^4}

= \int d^4x\ [\mathbf{k} \mathbf{T}^{\mu \nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}\sqrt{-g}]

See, originally, I had a picture in mind:

A = \int\ d^4x\ \sqrt{-g}[\frac{\mathbf{R}}{\mathbf{k}} + \mathcal{L}]

I asked “what if the Ricci curvature is broken into two parts just like in Sakharovs equation?” There turned out to be two theoretical ways to assume this sort of set up. We will cover one of them now another later. For instance, we bring the constant out of the square brackets and we get:

A = \int\ d^4x\ \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{\mathbf{k}}[\mathbf{R} +…]

Also there is nothing stopping us writing it as,

A = \int\ d^4x\ \frac{1}{\mathbf{k}}[\sqrt{-g}\mathbf{R} +…]

Where we pull k out and distribute the determinant of the metric… Which means when we apply the product rule of variations we can also have

\delta A = \int\ d^4x\ \frac{1}{\mathbf{k}}[\delta \mathbf{R}\sqrt{-g} + \mathbf{R}\delta\sqrt{-g}]

The variation of the determinant of the metric tensor \delta\sqrt{-g} can be related to the variation of the metric tensor \delta g_{\mu\nu} using

\delta\sqrt{-g} = -\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}

Substituting this expression into

\delta A, we obtain

\delta A = \int\ \frac{d^4x}{\mathbf{k}}\ [\delta \mathbf{R}\sqrt{-g} - \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{R}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}]

We can then use the fact that

\mathbf{R}^{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{R} g^{\mu\nu} = \mathbf{k} \mathbf{T}^{\mu\nu}

Which retrieves the Einstein tensor which is a mixture of both scalar and tensor curvatures.

**But This Doesn't Stop The Following Speculation**

So could Sakharov's Langrangian

\mathcal{L} = \mathbf{R}\ \hbar c\ k\ \int dk + \mathbf{R}^2\ \hbar c\ \int \frac{dk}{k}

Be incorporated into the action

A = \int\ d^4x\ \sqrt{-g}[\frac{\mathbf{R}}{\mathbf{k}} + ...]

Like so?

A = \int\ d^4x\ \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{\mathbf{k}}[\mathbf{R}\ \hbar c\ k \int dk + \mathbf{R}^2 \hbar c\ \int \frac{dk}{k}]\frac{16 \pi G}{c^4}

Where \frac{16 \pi G}{c^4} simply corrects the dimensions added in. This was the original set-up I considered and I still find it an interesting equation. If thus truly is also a valid line of research for investigation, then we can say something about higher power corrections.

**Higher Powers**

Sakharov concludes the higher powers are taken like so:

\int \frac{dk}{k}(\mathbf{B}\ \mathbf{R}^2 + \mathbf{C}\ \mathbf{R}^{ik}\mathbf{R}_{ik} +\mathbf{D}\ \mathbf{R}^{ikjm}\mathbf{R}_{ikjm} … + higher\ powers)

Where \int \frac{dk}{k} \approx 137

These higher powers on the equation we presented looks like:

A = \int\ d^4x\ \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{\mathbf{k}}[\mathbf{R}\ \mathbf{A}\ k\ \int dk + \int \frac{dk}{k}(\mathbf{B}\ \mathbf{R}^2 + \mathbf{C}\ \mathbf{R}^{ik}\mathbf{R}_{ik}+\mathbf{D}\mathbf{R}^{ikjm}\mathbf{R}_{ikjm} )]\frac{16\pi G}{c^4}

Notice that this hasn't been subjected to the calculus of variations.

**Higher Powers of Fluctuations**

\mathbf{R}\ \hbar c\ k \int dk, taking higher powers of \hbar c requires that the dimensions are scaled appropriately… Say the higher powers don't just affect the curvature, but affects higher powers of \hbar c = (\mathbf{A}, \mathbf{B},\mathbf{C},\mathbf{D}) \approx 1

And using the rule

\mathbf{R}^2 \hbar^2 c^2(\frac{1}{Gm^2}) k \int dk = \mathbf{R}^2 \hbar c\ \alpha^{-1}_G k \int dk

So taking higher powers of \hbar c in

A = \int\ d^4x\ \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{\mathbf{k}}[\mathbf{R}\ \mathbf{A}\ k\ \int dk + \int \frac{dk}{k}(\mathbf{B}\ \mathbf{R}^2 + \mathbf{C}\ \mathbf{R}^{ik}\mathbf{R}_{ik}+\mathbf{D}\mathbf{R}^{ikjm}\mathbf{R}_{ikjm} )]\frac{16\pi G}{c^4}

gives

A = \int\ d^4x\ \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{\mathbf{k}}[\mathbf{R}\ \mathbf{A}\ k\ \int dk

+ \int \frac{dk}{k}(\mathbf{B}^2\ \alpha_G^{-1} \mathbf{R}^2

+ \mathbf{C}^3\ \alpha^{-2}_G \mathbf{R}^{ik}\mathbf{R}_{ik}

+\mathbf{D}^4 \alpha^{-3}_G\mathbf{R}^{ikjm}\mathbf{R}_{ikjm} )]\frac{16\pi G}{c^4}

Where we use the gravitational fine structure to normalise the higher dimensions, for example. While the fine structure constant and Newton's gravitational constant are both fundamental constants of nature, they describe completely different physical phenomena. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that higher powers of the fine structure constant are equivalent to correcting gravity at higher powers.

However, there are some theories, such as string theory, that suggest a connection between the values of fundamental constants and the properties of space-time, including the strength of gravity. In these theories, it is possible that changes in the fine structure constant could lead to changes in the properties of space-time and therefore, to corrections in the theory of gravity. But this is a highly speculative area of research and is not yet well understood.

Taking higher powers of the fine structure constant can reveal higher order corrections to physical phenomena that cannot be accounted for by classical or first-order quantum mechanical calculations. In particular, higher-order quantum corrections are important in understanding the behavior of subatomic particles and the interactions between them.

For example, the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron can be calculated with higher and higher accuracy by taking into account higher order QED corrections involving higher powers of the fine structure constant. The electron's anomalous magnetic moment has been measured experimentally to extremely high precision, and the agreement between theory and experiment is a remarkable demonstration of the power of higher-order quantum corrections.

Similarly, in quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the theory that describes the strong nuclear force, higher order corrections involving higher powers of the strong coupling constant (the analog of the fine structure constant for the strong force) are important for understanding the properties of hadrons (particles made of quarks), and for calculating the scattering amplitudes of quarks and gluons.

In general, higher order corrections involving higher powers of dimensionless coupling constants are important for understanding the behavior of quantum field theories at energies far beyond the scales of current experiments. Such corrections can also provide clues to the existence of new physics beyond the Standard Model of particle physics.

**References**

http://ayuba.fr/pdf/sakharov_qvf.pdf

**Misc. Notes:**

\delta(\sqrt{-g}) are the variations of the Lagrangian density and the determinant of the metric tensor, respectively, under a small variation of the metric tensor g_{\mu\nu}.

This expression follows from the fact that the variation of the determinant of a matrix is given by:

\delta\det(A) = \det(A) \operatorname{tr}(A^{-1} \delta A)

where \delta\det(A) denotes the variation of the determinant of the matrix A, \det(A) is the determinant of A, \operatorname{tr}(A^{-1} \delta A) is the trace of the matrix product A^{-1} \delta A and \delta A is an arbitrary matrix of the same size as A.

Okay second try. So far I know that the first two equations are true:

\delta A = \int d^4x\ \left[\delta\mathcal{L}\sqrt{-g} + \mathcal{L}\delta(\sqrt{-g})\right]

We can simplify the second term using the variation of the determinant of the metric tensor:

\delta(\sqrt{-g}) = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}

The substitution should have been

\delta A = \int d^4x\ \left[\delta\mathcal{L}\sqrt{-g} + \mathcal{L}\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}\right)\right]

And yes, the Langrangian is split up into parts such that when we writ out the Sakharov Langrangian parts, the L will be replaced by the Ricci scalar. For instance, let us now use

A useful identity to always keep in mind is

g^{\mu\nu}g_{\mu\nu}=4

**Stress Tensor**

**Tensors and Lagrangian Density**

We refer back to

T^{\mu\nu}= -\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta \mathcal{L}\sqrt{g}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}

Where we rearranged to get:

T^{\mu\nu}\sqrt{-g}\ \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -2\delta \mathcal{L}\sqrt{-g}

And we shall use

\delta\sqrt{-g} = -\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}

Plugging the third equation into the second on the LHS gives

T^{\mu\nu} \sqrt{-g} \left(-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\alpha\beta}\delta g_{\alpha\beta}\right)

= -2\delta \frac{\mathcal{L}\sqrt{g}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}

Simplifying the left-hand side, we have:

We can simplify this expression by using the identity g^{\alpha\beta}g_{\alpha\beta}=4 and some algebraic manipulation.

Starting with the left-hand side:

T^{\mu\nu} \sqrt{-g} \left(-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\alpha\beta}\delta g_{\alpha\beta}\right)

Expanding the first factor and simplifying the second factor:

T^{\mu\nu} \sqrt{-g}\left(-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}g^{\alpha\beta}\delta g_{\alpha\beta}\right)

= -\frac{1}{2}T^{\mu\nu}g^{\alpha\beta}\sqrt{-g}\delta g_{\alpha\beta}

Now substituting

T^{\mu\nu} \sqrt{-g}\ \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -2\delta \mathcal{L}\sqrt{-g}

-\frac{1}{2}T^{\mu\nu}g^{\alpha\beta}\sqrt{-g}\delta g_{\alpha\beta}=-2\delta\mathcal{L}^{\mu\nu}\sqrt{g}

Using the chain rule of functional derivatives, we can write

\delta\mathcal{L}\sqrt{g} = \frac{\delta\mathcal{L}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} \delta g_{\mu\nu}\sqrt{g}

-2\delta\mathcal{L}^{\mu\nu}\sqrt{g} = -2\frac{\delta\mathcal{L}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} \delta g_{\mu\nu}\sqrt{g}

Finally, multiplying both sides by g_{\mu\nu}

and using

g^{\alpha\beta}g_{\alpha\beta}=4

we get:

-T^{\mu\nu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta \mathcal{L}\sqrt{g}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} g_{\mu\nu}

So we have simplified the original expression to the more compact form

-T^{\mu\nu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = 2\frac{\delta \mathcal{L}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} \frac{g_{\mu\nu}}{\sqrt{-g}}

This time plugging the third equation into the second equation on the RHS gives

T^{\mu\nu}\sqrt{-g}\ \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -2\delta \mathcal{L}\sqrt{-g} - \mathcal{L}\frac{\delta(\sqrt{-g})}{\sqrt{-g}}g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}

To get this, we start from

T^{\mu\nu}\sqrt{-g}\ \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -2\delta \mathcal{L}\sqrt{g}

and use the identity

\delta(\sqrt{-g}) = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}

but with a slight modification. We note that

\delta(\sqrt{-g}) = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{-g}}\delta(\sqrt{-g})\sqrt{-g} = \frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta(\sqrt{-g})}{\sqrt{-g}}\sqrt{-g}

And substitute this into the above equation to get:

T^{\mu\nu}\sqrt{-g}\ \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -2\delta \mathcal{L}\sqrt{g} - \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{L}\delta(\sqrt{-g})g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}

**Useful Operations**

**Variation of Metric Tensor**

$$\delta(\sqrt{-g}) = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}$$

This formula can be derived using the following steps:

- Use the chain rule to express the variation of the determinant of the metric tensor in terms of the variation of the metric tensor components:

$$\delta(\sqrt{-g}) = \frac{\partial(\sqrt{-g})}{\partial g_{\mu\nu}}\delta g_{\mu\nu}$$

- Use the formula for the derivative of the determinant of a matrix, which is:

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial g_{\mu\nu}}(\sqrt{-g}) = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}$$

2. Substitute the formula for the derivative of the determinant into the expression for the variation of the determinant, and simplify:

$$\delta(\sqrt{-g}) = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}$$

Therefore, the expression $\delta(\sqrt{-g}) = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ g^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}$ is a valid formula relating the variation of the determinant of the metric tensor to the variation of the metric tensor components.

**Reference to displayed equations:**

I have listened to a lot of theories on this over the years and I like to do my own Thought exercises on the subject but with a different perspective on someone who has led an academic life.

During one of my thought exercises on Expansion theory I was trying to imagine the primordial Atom being Expelled from "The Bulk" or "sub-space" or whatever you want to call a place with no space, time or matter but unlimited energy, into what would soon become our universe.

Our universe emerged through the quantum uncertainty principle creating matter in a dimensionless sub-space universe of infinite potential. That infinitesimally small piece of matter created out of nothing also created a tiny space in this dimensionless universe which due to it's dimensionless nature expelled that space into 3 of the 16 potential dimensions, or how ever many string theory now postulates, outside itself. It

I guess that most people just imagine a singularity just appearing but I wondered that as it is appearing it is the only space in the universe to occupy so where is the doorway it was expelled through at this point?

To those dimensions the sub-space would be smaller than a singularity but for this plank time instant it exists and the space it has expelled, also the size of a singularity but containing an almost infinite amount of potential from the sub-space universe that flooded into it before it was expelled. This then gives a singularity sized universe wrapped around the singularity that has expelled it and will not allow return.

My conclusion was that during this first instant of Plank Time the doorway existed as 1 singularity that had expelled a universes worth of Super-force ( I just call it pure potential) into another singularities worth of space/time and they existed as, effectively, a white hole spewing Super-force in all directions wrapped around another singularity that is actively rejecting any return through itself before vanishing as time began to move. For that first instant it was inflating itself with it's outpouring going inwards as well as outwards because it had 2 surfaces to, as the saying goes, the size of a football. The first part of inflation?

The Potential, when exposed to dimensions turns to energy and space which start to spread out but also try to explode inwards, so inflating itself to the point where it shatters into an untold number of fragments These white hole fragments explode into the space already created vomiting the universe as super-force energy out in plank time into the space already growing around each of them, each pushing itself away from the others until the point where the energy cools enough to go through a state change and transitions into matter and gains mass. At this point whatever is left of those fragments of white hole also transitions into matter but still so densely packed they become the supermassive black holes we still see shaping our universe around themselves ever since.

Instant super massive black holes everywhere surrounded by all that energy, space and matter it just ejected!

Is anybody working on something along these lines or am I the only one who has had this thought?

For example, in order to keep the Sun in its orbital motion around the SMBH, there is a need of 10^11 Sun mass.

However, the total mass of the SMB is only 4*10^6 Sun mass.

Therefore, the missing mass is called dark matter.

However, there is a severe mistake in this assumption

Somehow, the dark matter by itself can't explain the full structure of spiral galaxy.

It can't explain the Bulge, Bar, Ring and the disc shape.

It can't explain the spiral structure of the arm and why the thickness of the arm at the base (at 3KPC) is 3,000 LY while at the edge of the arm (12-15KPC) it is only 400LY.

It even can't explain the wobbling motion of the sun as it orbits around the galaxy.

Therefore, could it be that it was a sever mistake to assume that the Sun interact by gravity to the center of the galaxy?

We know that the moon interacts by gravity to the Earth.

The earth/moon are interacted by gravity to the Sun.

Therefore, as the moon interacts by gravity to the Earth, it wobbling while it orbits around the Sun.

Can we assume that spiral arm s gravitational arm?

The Sun is located at the Orion arm.

Therefore, why can't we assume that the Sun interacts by gravity to the local spiral arm and go with it wherever it goes?

Therefore, why can't we assume that as the moon interacts by gravity to the Earth, and it is wobbling while it orbits around the Sun, the Sun interacts to the Orion arm by gravity and it is wobbling as it orbits around the center of the galaxy.

]]>
**Basic equations**

Presumably, in three-dimensional space there is a field formed by vectors of electric intensity **E** = (E_{x}, E_{y}, E_{z}), magnetic intensity **H** = (H_{x}, H_{y}, H_{z}), and velocity **V** = (V_{x}, V_{y}, V_{z}). Also later in this article, the vectors of electrical induction in vacuum **D** = ε_{0} · **E** and magnetic induction in vacuum **B** = μ_{0} · **H** can be used.

**E** and **H** are "energy carriers" local density of energy is expressed as follows:

u = ε_{0}/2 · E^{2} + μ_{0}/2 · H^{2}

where E^{2} = E_{x}^{2} + E_{y}^{2} + E_{z}^{2} and H^{2} = H_{x}^{2} + H_{y}^{2} + H_{z}^{2}

Law of energy conservation: time derivative

u′ = - div **W**

where **W** = (W_{x}, W_{y}, W_{z}) is the energy flux vector.

In this case, **W** = [**E** × **H**] + ε_{0} · (**E** · **V**) · **E**

The scalar product EV = **E** · **V** = E_{x}_{ }· V_{x} + E_{y}_{ }· V_{y} + E_{z}_{ }· V_{z}

expresses the cosine of the angle between **E** and **V**.

In more detail,

W_{x} = E_{y} · H_{z} - E_{z} · H_{y} + ε_{0} · EV · E_{x}

W_{y} = E_{z} · H_{x} - E_{x} · H_{z} + ε_{0} · EV · E_{y}

W_{z} = E_{x} · H_{y} - E_{y} · H_{x} + ε_{0} · EV · E_{z}

Respectively,

div **W** = **H** · rot **E** - **E** · rot **H** + ε_{0} · **E** · grad EV + ε_{0} · EV · div **E**

Derivatives of the magnetic and electric field by time:

**H**′ = - 1/μ_{0} · rot **E**

**E**′ = 1/ε_{0} · rot **H** - grad EV - **V** · div **E**

In this case, div **E** is proportional to the local charge density q with a constant positive multiplier: q ~ div **E**, in the SI measurement system q = ε_{0} · div **E**.

Having performed the necessary transformations, we get:

u′ = ε_{0}/2 · (2 · E_{x} · E_{x}′ + 2 · E_{y} · E_{y}′ + 2 · E_{z} · E_{z}′)

+ μ_{0}/2 · (2 · H_{x} · H_{x}′ + 2 · H_{y} · H_{y}′ + 2 · H_{z} · H_{z}′)

= E_{x} · (∂H_{z}/∂y - ∂H_{y}/∂z - ε_{0} · ∂EV/∂x - ε_{0} · V_{x} · div E)

+ E_{y} · (∂H_{x}/∂z - ∂H_{z}/∂x - ε_{0} · ∂EV/∂y - ε_{0} · V_{y} · div E)

+ E_{z} · (∂H_{y}/∂x - ∂H_{x}/∂y - ε_{0} · ∂EV/∂z - ε_{0} · V_{z} · div E)

- H_{x} · (∂E_{z}/∂y - ∂E_{y}/∂z) - H_{y} · (∂E_{x}/∂z - ∂E_{z}/∂x) - H_{z} · (∂E_{y}/∂x - ∂E_{x}/∂y)

= **E** · rot **H** - **H** · rot **E** - ε_{0} · **E** · grad EV - ε_{0} · EV · div **E** = - div **W**

A term in the form of "grad EV" for **E**′ arises from the need to make an adequate expression of the energy conservation law, and although in the "natural" structures discussed below **E** is everywhere perpendicular to **V**, that is, EV = 0, it can play a role in maintaining the stability of field formations.

**Velocity derivative by time**

From the point of the energy-flux view, the time derivative **V**′ can be any expression, but should not contain a common multiplier **V** or 1 - V^{2}/c^{2}, since when approaching zero or the speed of light, the vector would practically cease to change locally, which contradicts many experimental facts and theoretical studies. The most likely are the two-membered constituents for **V**′, where one part contains **V** as a multiplier in the scalar or vector product, the second does not.

For example, the pure field similarity of the Lorentz forces is of interest:

**V**′ ~ (**D** · V^{2} - [**H** × **V**]) · div **E**

where V^{2} = V_{x}^{2} + V_{y}^{2} + V_{z}^{2}

The expressions **D** · V^{2} and **H** × **V** have the same dimension, A/s in SI, and after multiplying by the div **E**, it is still necessary to enter a coefficient to convert the resulting units into acceleration m/s^{2}. The numerical value of the coefficient will probably have to be determined experimentally.

Although there are no strict restrictions on the absolute value of **V**, as we shall see later, for field formations common in nature, it is uncharacteristically |**V**| > c, and the speed of light is achieved at a mutually perpendicular arrangement of **E**, **H**, and **V**, when the local "E-energy" is equal to "H-energy", that is, **E**^{2} ~ 1/ε_{0},** H**^{2} ~ 1/μ_{0}.

The exception is artificially created or simulated on the computer situations. Another hypothetical set of terms for the velocity derivative over time is **V**′ ~ **W** - u ·** ****V**. In the models of particles discussed below, in this case, there is a "longitudinal" effect on the velocity vector, in contrast to the "transverse" one under the influence of an electric and magnetic field, with the mutual perpendicularity of all three vectors.

If indeed **V**′ ~ **W** - u ·** ****V**, then although there is still no hard limit |V| ≤ c, the unlimited increase of the velocity in the absolute value is more explicitly limited by the member u ·** ****V** with a negative sign. If the magnetic or electric field somehow disappears, the velocity will rush to zero, although the energy density may remain non-zero. Modulus of **V** reaches its maximum value (= c) when **E** and **H** are perpendicular and ε_{0}/2 · E^{2} = μ_{0}/2 · H^{2}.

When the charged particle is in an external electric field, like created by another particle in the vicinity, due to the multiplier V^{2} in the expression **V**′ ~ (**D** · V^{2} - [**H** × **V**]) · div **E**

is independent of the sign of **V**, and the presence of significant velocities close to the speed of light inside the particle, the total acceleration acts in one direction (on average, although internal deformations may occur).

In an external magnetic field the velocity vector is involved in the first degree, in any projection about half of the currents are directed in one direction, and about half in the opposite direction, so only internal deformations occur. The shift of a particle as a whole is observed when it moves in an external magnetic field.

Let us consider the alleged structure of some elementary particles. To do this, we will use a cylindrical coordinate system (ρ,φ,z), where ρ^{2} = x^{2} + y^{2}, φ is the angle counted from the positive direction of the x-axis counterclockwise if it is directed to the right, the y-axis upwards, and the z-axis is directed towards us (the right coordinate system). Also, for the particles under consideration, we will set the condition of cylindrical symmetry, that is, ∂/∂φ = 0 for any variables.

Presumably, following fundamental gravitational fields exist:

(SI units in parentheses are m-metre, s-second, k-kilogram, A-Ampere)

scalar potential g (m^{2}/s^{2})

vector potential **G** (m/s)

scalar strain f (m^{2}/s^{3})

vector strain **F** (m/s^{2})

The gravitational constant g_{0} = 6.6742^{-11} (m^{3}/s^{2}/k) is also used,

local energy density u (k/m/s^{2}), for example electromagnetic = ε_{0}/2 · E^{2} + μ_{0}/2 · H^{2}

and Poynting vector S (k/s^{3}) = [**E** × **H**]

Time derivatives are expressed as follows:

g' = - f - c^{2} · div **G**

**G**' = - **F** - grad g

f' = - c^{2} · div grad g + fu · u

**F**' = c^{2} · rot rot **G** - fs · **S**

The constants fu (m^{3}/s^{2}/k) and fs (m/k) are positive, signs are selected so that scalar potential g becomes negative in presence of positive density u in vicinity of point.

The equations are similar to electromagnetic equations expressed in potentials:

a' = - c^{2} · div **A**

**A**' = - **E** - grad a

**E**' = c^{2} · rot rot **A**

In stationary state, for example, during formation of gravitational fields by stable elementary particle or single celestial body:

**S** = 0, **G** = 0, f = 0

**F** = - grad g

div grad g = fu · u / c^{2} = 4 · π · g_{0} · ρ, according to Newton's potential

Hence we get at ρ = u / c^{2}, fu = 4 · π · g_{0}

With zero u and **S**, following types of "pure" gravitational waves can exist:

1. Longitudinal potential-potential: g' = - c^{2} · div **G**, **G**' = - grad g

2. Longitudinal with phase shift of 90 degrees: g' = - f, f' = - c^{2} · div grad g

3. Transverse: g' = - c^{2} · div **G**, **G**' = - **F** - grad g, **F**' = c^{2} · rot rot **G**

Transverse ones are probably easier to detect in experiments.

Also you can read some suggestions about particles internal structure on the basis of fundamental fields, with the similar approach:

]]>

To view the e-book, first download an e-book read application. I use Turnipsoft’s Freda because it is a free App, has lots of options that all seem to work, and it will automatically speak the text without the need for producing a separate audio-book. You may prefer another e-book reader: I have no vested interest in promoting Freda. Once you have an e-reader application on your device, simply download a free copy of the e-book in the required format, and you are away.

Here is the link to the Smashwords page for the ‘Fixing Modern Physics‘ e-book.

The e-book ‘Fixing Modern Physics‘ provides an overview of various alternative particle Physics theories. It is cross-referenced to other documents so as to keep the delivery lighter than the detail of the source documents. It identifies 26 problems with Modern Physics and suggests solutions; addresses another 10 so-called mysteries of Modern Physics; and links to another 100 or so problems listed by Wikipedia. I am sure some contributors to this forum could identify quite a few more problems to add to the list.

The main advantage of an e-book approach is that is published in a range of formats, and self-formats for different devices and screen sizes. For instance below is an example screen-shot from my desktop computer.

Below is a similar screen shot from an 8” Sanyo tablet: they are remarkably similar, although I prefer a single column portrait-mode setting on the tablet because the graphics are larger.

Another advantage is that you can potentially tap into another audience.

And another advantage is that an e-book reader such as Freda will read the text aloud or via an ear-set. If you suffer from insomnia, I can recommend that you audio-play the ‘Fixing Modern Physics‘ e-book at bed time: I guarantee that the sandman will seal your eyes shut within 10 minutes.

Has anybody else dabbled with e-book publishing? If so, I would be happy to hear about your experience.

]]>

Energy is just hot dense space expanding into colder space. When energy enters the gravity field of the nucleus the free moving energy gets as far into the field until its heat/density equals that of the gravity field. This is a good place I think for the electron shell to exist.

Time dilation occurs when the force of gravity puts pressure on the nucleus of an atom in a large earth like gravity field. The nucleus of an atom in a gravity field will get hotter as its own gravity field is pushed back in on itself. When an object is moving through the universe the same effect happens to the nucleus because each time it moves into new cold space it's heat takes time to expand and gets pressured in on itself. Because the universe is a single infinite background the heat of the nucleus doesn't lose energy when moving.

Movement of an object and heating up of the nucleus through time dilation or other wouldn't effect the small infinite because it is too hot at the next level of atom/universe's to be effected by the heat of the outside universe moving. Coincidentally it is to small of a movement to have much of an effect on any outside universe that would be super cold.

A magnet is like a fan where two fans facing each other would push each other apart just as two north ends of a magnet do. The medium for the magnet is heat and it circulates heat through en enclosed system in a one way direction. The magnet doesn't heat up just like a fan doesn't heat up because of the air it circulates.

]]>I have a theory which explains the Gravity as dynamical force which appears only between moving particles. Actually electric and strong (aka nuclear) forces also appears only between particles, but as static ones.

This theory has few conclusions. One of them that the infinitly continued relative movement of all bodies in the space remains by means of dynamical force of gravity.

Thus,

1. Stars in any galaxy move with weak acceleration. By time they their orbit and speed increase. When they reach the galaxy's periferia their velocity increased greatly.

This is explanation for dark matter phenomena.

2. Cosmic rays get their high speed and energy during the weakly accelerated (by gravity) movement between galaxies after mil-ons and bil-ons years.

Known "knee" shift in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays demonstates the border between galaxy nad extragalaxy ones. Only the extragalaxy cosmic rays have energy exceed galaxy's ones by times, because the distance between galaxies much bigger then galaxys' size, and extragalaxy cosmic rays get thier superiorioty in the velocity and energy over the galaxy ones by weak gravity acceleration in this distances.

There are many other conclusions in the Dynamical Gravity theory.

]]>Every celestial body is moving through the space and this motion bears the force of gravity. The force is directly proportional to the mass of the body and its velocity. Thus, it can be expressed by F=k m v.

m is the mass of the body, v is the velocity and k is a constant.

The Earth has a huge mass and is travelling through space with a huge speed of 108000 km/h (so it is said). I think that the enormous mass travelling with an enormous speed tends to pull to itself the bodies which happen to find themselves in its close vicinity, thus enlarging its mass and consequently its force.

Of course this is just a thought, a hypothesis which is not supported by anything. Actually I am strongly against hypotheses. I believe that every hypothesis is very far from the truth. Our spirituality is still on a baby’s level to understand this life and this Cosmos.

Then why am I writing this? Only to tell you not to believe in any hypothesis.

]]>The proposed theory is an energy-centric approach that is based upon the fairly simple hypothesis there is only one type of energy-generating material, given the label ‘energen’. No suggestion is provided regarding the origin of energen; just a description of its physical characteristics. Fundamental particles, such as electrons, are considered to have an energy core consisting of a toroidal concentration of energen; with electric and magnetic fields consisting of less concentrated energen, but being defined by their different field-energy flow/movement patterns.

Although a fairly simple hypothesis, to have any credence, it needed to be able to explain a wide range of things such as atomic structure and electromagnetic phenomenon as well as, if not better than, conventional Science does. And that is a big ask, which caused the application of the new theory to drastically expand and to grow in width and depth. There are now three theory papers (and several simpler summary overviews) covering the topics of atomic structure; the nature of light and other forms of EMR; and electrons, electricity and magnetism. The theory detail and explanations are detailed but not unduly complex.

In some areas (e.g. Fresnel equations, Snell’s law, and Maxwell’s equations for EMR) there is good agreement, although the physical model differs from conventional wisdom. For electricity there is good agreement, with my theory seemingly providing a better explanation of semiconductor current, eddy current, and the Hall Effect than the conventional Science explanation or lack thereof. The real drama, however, relates to the atomic structure area, which I daresay will prove most challenging conceptually for most readers.

Recently some other individuals have contributed by way of editing and acting as a sounding board and devil’s advocate, so later versions of the papers have been attributed to the STEM Development Group. The links to the three topic-specific pdf papers are: The Nature of Light; Electrons and Electricity; Atomic Structure

]]>I envisioned an electrostatic force splitting the water molecule in saltwater. This splits the molecule into its atomic components, H2 & O & in the next instant these same atoms re-join as a water molecule giving off a lot of heat.

The reaction will give off a lot of heat over and over in a chain reaction.

The reaction is through a DC current. I believe there are ways to speed up this reaction.

We should try varying the frequency of the DC current. I believe there is another frequency that will speed up the molecules splitting.

To repeat,

Pass this electrical current through a solution of saltwater; and in that same instance the two elements will rejoin back into a water molecule.

Creating a never-ending cycle of splitting and rejoining. While at the same time the volume of water remains the same.

maybe I will start a topic on this.

What say you--?

]]>Imagine two rubber rods, equal in dimensions, but they are made from different types of rubber. The different types of rubber have different elasticity.

Imagine one has to bend both rods to an equal extent (figure below):

Let’s say the grey rubber is more elastic than the black rubber. Therefore, you have to apply less force to bend the grey rod than to bend the black rod to the same extent (pictured on the right in the figure above).

Instead of bending them, let’s say you have to twist them to the same extent. What does it mean “to the same extent” in this case? If you twist them by applying force with both hands, then it means, for example, that you have to turn the rod with the left hand for 90 degrees and also with the right hand for 90 degrees. So, you will twist both rods to the same extent (i.e. 180 degrees). (note: you can turn only one hand for 180 degrees. The result is the same.)

You will do that also easier with the grey rod than with the black rod.

Now, imagine two rubber rods, both are made from the same type of rubber and both are equally long, but the one rod is thicker than the other. The thinner rubber rod is more elastic than the thicker rubber rod. You will have to apply less force for the thinner rod to twist it (or to bend it) to the same extent.

Yet another case: you have two rubber rods, both are made from the same type of rubber, both equally thick, but the one rod is longer than the other rod. The longer rubber rod is more elastic than the shorter. You will have to apply less force to twist the longer rod.

So, you see that the elasticity of a rubber rod depends on the material, on the length and on the thickness (i.e. the cross sectional area):

k - coefficient of elasticity

L - the length of the rod

A - cross sectional area of the rod

But look, we can always speak of the opposite (reciprocal) of a certain quantity. For example, the opposite of speed is slowness (1/v). The cheetah is the world champion in speed, but the snail is the world champion in slowness. Its slowness is 115 s/m.

Similarly, instead of elasticity of the rubber rod, we can speak of its reciprocal quantity. What quantity would that be? It would be resistivity. Instead of saying a rod is more elastic, we could also say it is less resistive and vice versa (less elastic corresponds to the more resistive).

You are probably asking yourself, what all this has to do with electromagnetism? Look, more than a hundred years ago Oliver Heaviside introduced the term “elastance” as the inverse of capacitance. He made an analogy of a capacitor as a spring, which was not a very good comparison. A true comparison is twisting and untwisting of a rubber rod. If you connect a capacitor to a battery, then the EM-forces of the dielectric get twisted. The process of twisting is actually an electric current through the dielectric in one direction. If you disconnect the capacitor and then connect it to a resistor, the process of untwisting in the dielectric begins (the energy stored in the twist is being released). It is actually an electric current in the opposite direction. The greater the resistance of the resistor is, the slower is the process of untwisting.

So, the dielectric of the capacitor is, in a sense, a rubber rod.

For the capacitance of a capacitor applies the equation:

For the elasticity/elastance of a capacitor would apply the reciprocal equation:

If you compare it to the first equation about the elasticity of the rubber rod, you will notice that they are the same. The length of the rubber rod corresponds to the “d” of the dielectric.

Instead of capacitance of a capacitor, we can speak of resistance of a capacitor. So, instead of capacitance/elastance, we can speak of resistance/elasticity. Why would we do that? Because we can apply the same concept to an inductor.

Just as there is twisting and untwisting of the EM-forces in the dielectric of a capacitor, there is also twisting and untwisting of the EM-forces in the (ferromagnetic) core of an inductor. The difference between the two is in that, that in the first case the dominance is on the electric forces, while in the second case the dominance is on the magnetic forces.

The inductance of a ferromagnetic core is:

The number μ (mu) is called magnetic permeability. It corresponds to the resistivity of the rubber as material. The number A is the cross sectional area of the core, while l is the length of the core.

So, the elasticity of the ferromagnetic core will be:

Oliver Heaviside didn’t coin an opposite term for the inductance as he did it for the capacitance. If he did it, then it should have been the same as for the capacitance.

I can also speak about resistance vs elasticity regarding the flow of electric current through the metals, but I will do it in another post. Here I will only say that silver and copper are electrically the most elastic metals, that is, they conduct the electric current the best.

As you can see, resistance and elasticity are universal terms regarding electromagnetism. They can be applied to conductors, dielectrics (capacitors) and ferromagnetics (inductors).

See also:

**What is electric current?**

**Pinna Brelstaff optical illusion recurs in mechanics and electromagnetism!**

]]>

To summarize the contents of the article:

"In this article a particle is being presented that explains all known forces of nature. The particle has no dimensions, it is a dimensional basic particle. Hence it gets the following name: 'dimensional basic' (db) particle. The core of this discovery is that the separate fundamental forces of nature: - the strong interaction, the electromagnetic interaction, the weak interaction and the gravitational interaction - are calculatable with one formula out of one principle. The statistical math of the quantum theory is set aside in favor of a goniometric approach. Gravitation is the only force that matters and the strong force, the electromagnetic force and the weak force can be explained out of gravitation while gravity itself is only caused by the curvature of db's. The formula for the extent of curvature around a db is: sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1. In the formula: x, y, z, are coordinates in spacetime [m], Kr = curvature [m^-1]."

The title of the article is 'Metric Science' and since the file is larger than 1 MB (2,3 MB) I need to use an external link. The article can be downloaded from: https://www.vixra.org/pdf/2106.0155v1.pdf

The article has not been peer-reviewed.

]]>

]]>

The design produces an upward force of 118,428 cubic feet of trapped air pushing to get to the surface.

This pushing/pulling force is constant. While at the same time a refilled tank of air must replace a discharged tank at the bottom every 11 seconds.

Translating this into an equation is above my pay grade. I came up with a crazy idea, I made a drawing of it and posted this idea here.

Having said that--

The world is running out of fossil fuels and I was just trying to come up with an alternative.

I put in my two cents, nothing left for me to do.

Speaking of “energy” in, and “energy” out.

[A] = energy consumed

[B]=** **energy released

**.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.**

[a] = the energy used to refine atomic particles for a bomb.

[b]= energy released when the bomb is exploded.

[b] is greater than [a]; you are getting more out than you put in.

The rule of “conservation of energy” does not apply above

I made a mistake in my SeaEngine calculation.

As stated the total cubic feet of air being displaced is 118,428.

Equating to 118,426 pounds of force.

This is incorrect, each cubic foot of displaced air has a lifting force of 64 pounds.

That equates to (118,426)X(64) = 7,579,264 pounds of lifting force

As a student exercise in calculating physical properties the SeaEngine would make a great way to test one’s physical understanding of the operation of the machine, as designed.

]]>]]>

Energy Wave Theory (EWT) is a mathematical model with logical explanations for the smallest components of the universe that:

- Simplifies all known particles to be based on one fundamental particle – the neutrino
- Simplifies the cause of motion and forces to be based on one fundamental rule – to minimize wave amplitude
- Explains the creation of particles, atoms and molecules using descriptions that can be modeled with one set of classical laws

Time does not exist in reality at all. What really exist in Cosmos are only these things: spirit, soul, space, matter, force (material as well as immaterial), field and motion (the matter or non-matter is moving or it is transforming). Time is only an auxiliary term of the spirit (in this case, of the human being) which helps him to express the real things in numbers.

Let’s say two material bodies are moving in space parallel to each other and we see that the space between them is increasing. We say that the one body is moving faster than the other. That is real. Let’s say someone asks you how much faster the one body is moving in respect to the other? Two times, 1.5 times, 3.7 times faster? You answer: I don’t know, I have to measure. But you can’t measure the speed of any motion directly. First you have to measure the space the bodies have traveled. You have to make also a pendulum and count its oscillations while the bodies are travelling. At the end you say that the first body has traveled a given distance for 100 oscillations of the pendulum, and the second body has traveled the same distance for 150 oscillations of the pendulum. With little mathematics you say that the first body was moving 1.5 times faster than the second.

What have you actually done? You were observing two motions, a forward motion and an oscillatory motion, thereby counting the oscillations. Where is here the time? No time at all. The spirit was only observing and counting.

So, time is merely a process of counting oscillatory movements. And counting is also a deed of the spirit.

NO SPIRIT – NO COUNTING, NO TIME.

[ [footnote 1] According to the etymological meaning of the words, what we describe here should not be called a battery, but a cell (an electrochemical cell). A battery is a multi-cell set. For example, the car battery is exactly that - a multi-cell set. [end of footnote]

Just as the electricity can be produced by rubbing a woolen or other cloth against amber, vinyl, glass, PVC etc., so it arises here also through friction between the agent and the metal surface. The difference is that in the first case there is a mechanical, whereas here it is a chemical friction (so I call the chemical reaction). But since two dry substances cannot rub chemically, the battery jar must contain water. In the case of the mechanical friction everything has to be well dry, here everything has to be well wet (don’t be confused by the expression “dry cell”; it is also wet).

When two metal plates (say copper and zinc) are partly immersed in a dissolved agent, then the part of the copper plate outside the liquid is polarized in one sense (plus +), the immersed part in the opposite sense (minus -). For the zinc plate applies the opposite. Plus means blowing, Minus means suctioning (in relation to this, please see **Is the designation "positive" and "negative" in the electricity arbitrary?**). The two metal plates of the battery can be imagined as two fans. The one that is blowing outside the liquid (positive electrode = copper), it is suctioning inside the liquid; the one that is suctioning outside the liquid (negative electrode = zinc), it is blowing inside it. When the electrodes are connected with a metal wire, a closed flux is created. The Plus is the strongest near the positive pole and, as we move away from it through the wire, its strength continuously decreases. The same applies to the Minus, but starting from the other pole. Figuratively, we can represent it this way:

The closed flux will circulate until one of the plates is consumed or until the agent has transformed into something else and thus has lost its aggressiveness. These two processes are interconnected and take place simultaneously. In the agent there is motion of matter. For comparison and better understanding, we use another natural phenomenon, the waves in the oceans. The water level rises and falls and we cannot say that the water moves toward the coast with the speed of the wave. However, an object floating on the water will move with each wave a little onward until it eventually reaches the coast. (in relation to this, please see **What is electric current?**).

At the same time the negative electrode wears off, which is understandable, because its part inside the solution behaves as positive and the movement is always from the positive to the negative. If we open a "dead" carbon-zinc AA battery, we will see that the zinc jar (the negative pole) is completely dissolved, while the carbon rod (the positive pole) in the middle is quite good. Certain non-metals when rubbed with some cloth have an intrinsic tendency to plus (glass, leather, nylon), others to minus electricity (amber, vinyl, silicone, teflon, PVC, etc.). For the metals we cannot speak in the same sense of the tendency to plus or to minus, because, as we see, the two polarities manifest here simultaneously. However, if we speak of the metal’s polarity outside the liquid, we can say that gold, silver, copper, platinum and carbon among others have an intrinsic plus tendency, while zinc, lead, aluminum, tungsten, iron etc. have a minus tendency.

Let us now consider the following experiment. We need three metal plates (a copper, zinc and a lead plate) and a small container with vinegar. First, we dip the copper and the zinc plate partly in the vinegar and connect them to a voltmeter: the copper plate to the (+)input, the zinc plate to the (-)input of the instrument. A voltage of about +0.93 V is measured. Then we do the same with the other two possible combinations. In the combination of copper and lead plate we measure about +0.43V when the copper plate is connected to the (+)input of the instrument, and in the combination of lead and zinc plate about +0.50V when the lead plate goes to the (+)input. In all cases the copper plate behaves like a (+)pole, the zinc plate like a (–)pole, only the lead plate in one case behaves like (–), in the other like (+)pole. On the horizontal axis of a graph we mark copper with +0.2, lead with –0.2 and zinc with –0.7 and see that the difference between copper and lead is 0.4, between copper and zinc 0.9 and between lead and zinc is 0.5, which is nearly consistent with the results of the voltage measurements. Therefore, we conclude that copper has the tendency to plus, lead the tendency to minus and zinc has a strong tendency to minus.

In the third case of the experiment (Pb-Zn), we saw that the lead plate behaved as a (+)pole. Here a reversal of polarity of the lead plate takes place. The strong minus of the zinc plate reverses the weak minus of the lead plate converting it into plus. Let's compare that to the fans. Two fans with electric drives, one strong, the other weak, both are suctioning, are moved towards each other. The stronger will then force the weaker to turn in the contrary direction, i.e., to behave as a (+)blowing force in the interspace. If the strength of the stronger is 0.7 units and that of the weaker 0.2 units, then the strength of the stronger will decrease by 0.2 units in the interspace because part of its force it is using to overcome the power of the weaker. In the case of copper and zinc, there is another configuration because their forces add up (0.2 – (–0.7) = 0.2 + 0.7 = 0.9).

A reversal of polarity is also seen on magnets: a strong neodymium magnet reverses the polarity of a small and weak Al-Ni-Ko magnet, but in this case the reversal is permanent.

If we connect the poles of a 1.5 volt carbon-zinc battery with a good conducting wire (so-called short circuit), then the battery voltage will fall rapidly, but will remain at a certain value considerably less than the initial. If we break the circuit, the voltage soon returns to the initial value. Connecting the battery poles with a wire of very high resistance, the voltage of the battery will not fall. We can compare this to a container filled with water. If an outlet is located in the lower part of its lateral wall, the force with which the water flows out (determined by the reach of its jet) depends only on the height of the water level, which also represents the pressure on the outflow point. The container is not large and, as the water flows out, the water level and thus the pressure decreases, which reduces the jet reach. Let's imagine that the water column is quite high and that, as we open the outflow, a steady flow of water into the container begins; this inflow is smaller than the outflow of water in the first moments. As the water level drops, so does the intensity of the outflow, thereby at a certain moment the inflow and the outflow equalize and from then on the level but also the jet remain unchanged. Let us imagine another situation. Instead of a water container we have a huge lake with sufficient inflow and an outlet in the lower part. The force of the water jet with unchanged size of the outlet will always be the same; it is so because the water drain has no, or only a negligible effect on the level of the lake.

Let's get back to the battery. The fact that we cannot get more than 1V from copper, zinc and an acidic solution is a good example of the limitations that exist in the real physical world, and that must always be kept in mind if one doesn’t want to lose touch with reality. Also, in our water example, we cannot construct a container that reaches sky-high even with the latest technology; the container will always have a limited height and at some point the water will overflow.

We compare the size of the outlet to the conductivity of the wire. The larger the outlet is, the greater the conductivity. The intensity of inflow into the container we compare with the friction intensity of the agent with the metal plates. If we make a battery with larger plates in a larger container, but also with a more aggressive agent (sulfuric acid, for example, is much more aggressive than vinegar), then we have more intensive friction (i.e. more intensive “inflow”) and the voltage to which the initial voltage will fall when connecting the battery poles with a good conducting wire will be higher compared to the case with the smaller plates and the less aggressive acid [footnote 2]. Hence, the current will be stronger, too. With a huge battery, the voltage will not drop at all (this is the case with the huge lake). To achieve a voltage greater than 1 volt, we need to connect two or more cells in series. So we can get higher voltages only in steps: 2, 3, 4 volts. The parallel connection of two cells (plus connected to plus, minus to minus) which deliver the same voltage is the same as if we would have increased the dimensions of the plates and the container of a single cell. Increasing the dimensions of a cell also affects its power output, inasmuch as with a larger cell a bulb will shine longer before it begins to dim. The unit of measurement for this value is called ampere-hour (Ah). If a battery has 10 amp-hours, it means that it can supply current of one amp for 10 hours. Of course, this is an ideal value, since the voltage and thus the current gradually drops, and so the luminosity. However, if the battery delivers half an amp for two hours, that's one ampere hour too.

**[Footnote 2] **The described battery filled with vinegar is unusable for practical purposes because the vinegar is a very weak agent, i.e. the **“**inflow**” **in the battery is very low. No matter what bulb we connect to this battery, its voltage will immediately drop to zero and the bulb will not light up. Nevertheless, this battery shows the same voltage on the voltmeter as the one with the more aggressive agent, such as sulfuric acid. The measuring of the battery voltage we can compare with the measuring of the pressure at the lateral bottom point of an opaque container whose water level is unknown. At this point, we pierce a fine hole with a very thin needle and determine the water level in the tank according to the jet reach. Before that, through experiments with foreknown water levels (i.e. pressure values) we had set a scale of the jet reach at the same pinhole. With this scale we can also determine the pressure in the opaque tank, i.e., the unknown level when we make a hole with the same needle. Since the jet is very thin, the outflow won’t have a significant effect on the water level even of a very narrow tank. When we measure the voltage of a battery, we actually connect it to a great resistance (which we can think of as an extremely thin and long wire), measuring the strength of the current through it on the basis of the scale previously set. Although the bulb is also an extremely thin wire, its resistance is still low because of its shortness. Therefore, its connection to the vinegar battery is comparable to a larger hole in a narrow tank with water, in which there is also a very low inflow, resulting in the level falling immediately to zero.

P.S. Dear administrators and moderators, there is a limit of 1MB for uploading images. I have nearly used it up. How can I get 1MB more, please?

]]>I believe everyone is quite familiar with many optical illusions.

This is one of the most known optical illusions. When we stand on railway tracks, we have the impression that the tracks in the distance get closer and touch each other.

If we stand on a hill and look down at the town under us, we see the nearby houses bigger than the houses in the distance. Is this an illusion?! How would we otherwise have a real sense, what near to us and what farther away is?! Thanks to this “illusion”, we can truly perceive the reality.

The “illusion” with the railway tracks has the same basis as the “illusion” with the houses. And many optical illusions also come down to this: we see the distant objects smaller than the nearby ones.

Please look now at this image:

This is an image of a toroidal coil, but I made use of it to represent the magnetic current of a DC-carrying wire loop.

This image can serve two purposes:

1) as an optical “illusion” and,

2) as a real representation of what is going on inside the loop when we move a magnet in and out of it.

What is the optical “illusion” hidden in this coil? If we look at the helical line of the coil, we see these line segments “ \ “ above as well as below. There is no difference in the tilt of these segments above and below. Both are tilted to the left.

Look now at this Pinna-Brelstaff “illusion”:

(footnote: You can find more effective circles of the Pinna-Brelstaff illusion on the web.)

The inner circle has the same line segments as the toroidal coil.

Look now at, so to speak, the inner segments of the toroidal coil (figure below).

Unlike the previous ones, these segments have different directions. Those above point to the left, while those below to the right.

These segments can serve to represent the induced, or rather, the incited [from Latin incitare “to set in motion”] magnetic forces, which create a magnetic current in the loop when we move a magnet in and out of it.

When we move the magnet into the loop with its Plus-pole ahead (I call Plus the pole of the compass needle that points North), then the incited magnetic forces in it point with their plus-poles toward us, that is, they resist the movement of the magnet. In the upper part of the loop they point, as it was already said, toward our left side (figure below).

Since the magnetic current has the same direction as the electric current (see **What is electric current?**), we can conclude that the induced, or rather, the incited electric current in the loop is flowing counter-clockwise.

When we move the magnet into the loop with its Minus-pole ahead, then the incited magnetic forces in it point with their minus-poles toward us, that is, they resist the movement of the magnet again. In the upper part of the loop they point toward our left side (figure below).

Thus, the incited electric current in the loop is flowing clockwise.

[ I want to stress that the incited magnetic (and consequently also electric) forces are in the wire, but their effect is present also near the wire. ]

In this way you can easily determine the direction of the induced (incited) current in a wire by a moving magnet. You don’t need such rules as right hand, middle finger, fore finger, thumb etc., etc.

As we move the magnet toward and into the loop, the magnitude of the current changes. Thereby the form of the magnetic helix also changes. When the current is weak, then the magnetic helix is pretty extended. As the current is increasing, so the helix is becoming more and more compact (figure below).

( I am sorry I didn’t draw real helices. )

Since the magnetic helix is more compact when the current is stronger, it follows that the loop’s magnetic field is also denser.

Hence, the magnetic field of a loop is twisted and the stronger the current through it is, the greater also its density is.

Considering that we can make a permanent magnet with the help of an electromagnet, it follows that the magnetic field of a permanent magnet is also twisted. If we have two equal magnets in dimensions, but the first stronger than the second, it means that the magnetic density of the first is higher.

Please watch now the kid’s toy in this video:

Two essential parts of this toy are the twisted wires and the washer. When we push the twisted wire through the washer or vice versa, the latter is turning. In this way a linear motion is converted in a circular motion.

The same working principle is applied in some ashtrays with spinning lids, other kids’ toys (carousels, tops), push-pull screwdrivers and drills etc. **[** In the push-pull screwdrivers and drills, the nut (i.e. the washer) is hold stationary and the metal rod with the twisted groove is turning. **]**

And exactly the same principle is present also when we push a magnet into and pull it out of a loop. But since that what is going on during this process is partly immaterial, it is much more diverse than that what is going on with pure material objects.

[ The image of this manual drill is borrowed from **Handy Manual Drill**. The text in the image is added by me. ]

The turning of this manual drill is happening due to the relief lines (figure below) in the twisted object [meaning of “relief”: the difference of elevations on a surface]:

Such relief can be achieved either by drilling a twist in a rod, or by twisting two or more wires as the man did in the video.

So, the washer from the video can turn in two ways:

1) by a linear motion of the twisted wires through the washer;

2) by a linear motion of the washer around the twisted wire.

The same phenomena we encounter also with the magnet and the loop.

But look, we cannot make the washer turn if we only turn the twisted wire. Why? Because in this case there is **no linear component**** **of the motion of the relief lines **(** I hope it is clear what I mean with it **)**. I mention it because of the Faraday’s paradox. Please see: **What is the Faraday paradox?**

There is one more way to incite a magnetic current and consequently also an electric current in the loop. How? By a sudden twisting or untwisting of the magnetic field. This happens in the cases of an inductor and a transformer [ Please see: **What is magnetic hysteresis?**** **]. The linear component is present during the twisting and untwisting.

I believe that we can make the washer also turn if we find a way to abruptly untwist the twisted wires.

If we move two equal, but differently strong magnets with the same speed into and out of a loop, then we certainly get a stronger current with the stronger magnet. As I have already said, the stronger magnet has a denser magnetic field. Look please at the figure below:

The figure (a) represents a lower, while the figure (b) a higher magnetic density. The relief lines which I have already drawn

are denser when the magnetic field is stronger. Hence, when we are moving the magnet toward the loop, those “relief” lines of the stronger magnetic field **are hitting (inciting) the magnetic forces in the wire with a higher frequency **and thus the incited magnetic current is stronger.

As I have already said, the phenomena of electromagnetism have a greater diversity than those with pure material objects. Here is a case which is impossible with material objects. We can move the magnet toward a metal loop which has a smaller circumference than that of the magnet and a current is incited in the loop. In this case only a part of the magnetic field passes through the loop. To understand this, we have to apply the principle of self-similarity. It is a very important principle and this mankind should devote more time to its investigation [ **Self-similarity - Wikipedia **].

Please read now the first passage of the **Albert Einstein’s “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”:**

**“**It is known that the application of Maxwell's electrodynamics, as ordinarily conceived at the present time, to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which don't seem to be connected with the phenomena. Let us, for example, think of the mutual action between a magnet and a conductor. The observed phenomenon in this case depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, while according to the usual conception, a strict distinction must be made between the cases where the one or the other of the bodies is in motion. If, for example, the magnet moves and the conductor is at rest, then an electric field of certain energy-value is produced in the neighborhood of the magnet, which excites a current in those parts of the field where a conductor exists. But if the magnet be at rest and the conductor be set in motion, no electric field is produced in the neighborhood of the magnet, but an electromotive force is produced in the conductor which corresponds to no energy per se; however, this causes – equality of the relative motion in both considered cases is assumed – an electric current of the same magnitude and the same course, as the electric force in the first case**.****”**

What does this guy say in the first sentence? He says that the experiments contradict the Maxwell’s theory. According to that theory, if a magnet is moving in the void space, then besides the magnetic field, there is also an electric field adhered to it. If a metal wire is placed on its way, then this electric field (which is also present without the wire), appears also in the wire. According to this theory, when the wire is moving and the magnet is stationary, no electric current should appear in the wire.

And this guy, without any understanding of electromagnetism, takes these experiments as a basis for his theory of relativity, that is, he asserts that only the relative motion is what counts. But a simple experiment, called Faraday paradox, can disprove his confusing theory which, except for the confusion, hasn’t brought anything to this mankind. The same applies for the other guy’s theory.

I have begun this post with an illusion to tell you that there are not absolute illusions. In every illusion there is reality. The same principle in the illusion from the beginning of this article recurs also in a mechanical and an electromagnetic sense. The latter are surely not illusions.

I am sure there are many questions which are not explained in this post. For more, please see:

1) **What is electric current?**

2) **What is electromagnetic induction?**

3) **What is Faraday’s law of electromagnetic induction?**

4) **How can we get a visualization of an electromagnetic wave?**