[General] Your and Marmet's papers

Mon Dec 18 10:03:25 PST 2017

Dear Pavel,

Note that in Fig.1 and Fig.9, it is not the traditional E and B fields nor Faraday's closed magnetic lines that are used for representation, but the vectorial direction of motion of the actual energy that sustains the magnetic and electric fields.

In the mutually inducing electric and magnetic aspects of the self-sustaining quantum shown as a reciprocating motion between two electric charges state and 1 magnetic component state, the energy that cyclically contributes the magnetic field grows by spherical expansion to a maximum spherical volume (shown as step c in Fig.9 of the second paper) – represented with the vectorial arrows spherically pointing outwards while the two charges have resorbed to zero presence, to then spherically regress towards zero magnetic presence (step d) until all the energy has been transferred to both charges at maximum (step a) where the magnetic presence has resorbed to zero presence.

The closed magnetic lines representation was proposed by Faraday to help "visualize" macroscopic magnetic interaction at our macroscopic level.

The representations of Fig.1 and Fig.9 represent the local energy of the elementary particles that individually contributes the macroscopic magnetic "fields" that we better visualize with the magnetic lines representation.

In Fig.1, you can see the vectorial arrows of the magnetic component pointing inwards while those of the two charges are pointing outwards. With respect to Fig.9 of the paper on the de Broglie photon, this corresponds to step d of the reciprocating swing, en route towards step a, ready to initiate the next reciprocating cycle.

Now for the difference/relationship between 1/r3  and /d4 in Fig.2, It simply relates to the fact that the magnetic interaction obeys the inverse cube interaction law (1/r3), meaning that it involves interacting "spherical volumes" by structure when the sources are punctual such as electrons, as confirmed by the Kotler et al. experiment (Reference [38] in the first paper).

The /d4 is related to the fact that a measure of force (F) requires that the actual distance center to center of the two magnetic spheres involved be taken account of.

You will easily relate to the fact that a Force, which is normally expressed in "newtons", can also be expressed in joules per meter (j/m). So if you mulitply both sides of a force equation involving two magnetic spheres interacting by the distance separating their centers, you obtain an energy E expressed in joules (j), which in the case of the equation of Fig.2 would leave the expected /d3, but then, the equation would provide the actual energy related to this amount of force.

Since the force involved depends on the center to center distance between both spheres, then this distance will be equal to the radius that must be used to calculate the volumes of the spheres when both fields apply this amount of force against (or towards) each other. In fact, the d4 component is d (distance between the spheres centers) multiplied by d3 (of the spheres volume calculation) = d4.

For ease of in context relating the inner dimensions of the "newton" to joules per meter (j/m), I derived these inner dimensions at length in "Section XVIII - Dimensional Analysis of the Coulomb Equation" in this paper:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf

As for the possibility that a fractal description could be used. I never considered the possibility, but I don't see why not since volumes seem to be involved. I effectively think that the complete reciprocating cycle could be represented by a dynamic fractal representation, and that this could be quite visually attractive and meaningful, and could possibly reveal aspects that remain to be explored.

I hope I succeeded in explaining clearly.

Best Regards

André
---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:21:40 +0100 (CET), Pavel OŠMERA wrote:

Hello André,

I have a few questions. Where are closed magnetic lines on Fig.1 in "gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf" or on Fig.9 in "on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf".
What is the difference or relationship in 1/r3 and /d4? on Fig.2 ? Is it possible to use a fractal description?

Best regards
Pavel Osmera

----- Original Message -----
From: "André Michaud"
To: jchodge at frontier.com, general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 5:13:01 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Your and Marmet's papers

Hello Hodge,

When you write " could your and his model of electron and photon be that the photon/electron is made of magnets and the vortices " I think that you correctly relate the magnetic field with two charges.

My answer is definitely yes. And I think that this could work in my model, at least, your vortices could possibly represent the varying intensity of the E fields as they cyclically vary in intensity.

If you look at equation (14) in the last paper I referred Richard to:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

you will see that the photon E fields is made of 2 components, whose common E field definition is drawn from my paper ("Field equations for ..."), and is also shown as the second equation (13) , both of which cyclically morph into a single B field, whose definition also comes from the ("Field equations for ...") paper.

Now this is not obvious in equation (14), but both electric components cyclically oscillate in opposite directions with respect to each other from a maximum distance set at (lambda alpha)/(2 pi) at maximum intensity to zero distance at zero intensity when the B field reaches max intensity. You can se a representation of this cyclic motion with this image (Figure 9) in my paper on the de Broglie photon):

The paper for the de Broglie photon is here:

https://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Since these 2 components of the photon E field always are moving in opposite directions, either away from, or towards each other, then your vortices applied to the varing intensity of the opposite charges as they move would make sense in my view.

Best Regards

André ---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:06:03 +0000 (UTC), Hodge John wrote:

Andre:
Thanks for the reference to Marmet's paper ("Fundamental nature ...") and you paper ("Field equations for ...").
The vortices seem very interesting to my model ecause my plenum is non-viscus. I lthink his description of diffraction of photons doesn't work - especially for the single photon case.
More to the point - could your and his model of electron and photon be that the photon/electron is made of magnets and the vortices ( I really like the vortices in my model -just still trying to apply) . The prime issue of the Poincare stress is solved and the "hollow" aspect is gone. I think the other issues can be solved if the rotation direction of the electric vortices are opposite (how to define direction) for positive and negative charge.
Could this work in your model?
You'll notice I'm "out of the box" , also. My diffraction test is the 2 Hodge experiments and the Afshar experiment that reject wave light models.
Hodge _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at srp2 at srpinc.org

Click here to unsubscribe

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at osmera at fme.vutbr.cz

Click here to unsubscribe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171218/5a0fdd8c/attachment.html>