[General] speculative model of the electron

[André Michaud]

Dear Pavel,

I will comment inline in red for consistency.

Best Regards

Your orthogonal structure of the 3-spaces model is very good for mathematical description. Unfortunately, 3D imagination does not allow.

Well, there is a very convenient ploy I use to make 3-spaces geometry easy to visualize even with 3D imagination. 

Given that is seems impossible to visualize more than 3 dimensions at a time, at the beginning, I took to the habit of mentally folding the 3 dimensions of normal space as if they were the ribs of an open three-rib metaphorical umbrella in my attempts to more easily visualize an expanded space geometry that would allow for this possibility. This allowed visualizing the folded "normal space" umbrella as the major X-axis of some sort of expanded space geometry, giving rise to the possibility of a major Y-axis representing a "folded space" for the electric field and a major Z-axis "folded space" for the magnetic field.

The further step of extending the folded umbrella idea to the other two major axes was easily taken, thus defining an intriguing new geometry of three orthogonally coexisting spaces, each internally possessing 3 dimensions, a metaphorical mental "Rubik's cube" that I became very fond of playing with, mentally opening and closing the umbrellas one at a time as needed to continue being able to easily visualize the whole geometry. Of course, this mental opening and folding of “umbrellas” has no impact on the real spaces that would be represented. They would be permanently mathematically open and fully extended at all times, maybe even in reality.

It is to this space geometry that I then undertook to relate all verified properties of elementary scatterable particles, each of which being the focus of a local occurrence of intersection of these three spaces, and each being separated from all others by total vacuum.

In our avi is our speculative 3D model of the electron with magnetic field. There is a neglected magnetic field in the Bohr's model. 

Yes. I found that the magnetic field is absent not only from Bohr's model, but also of QED.

Very important is energy equilibrium between magnetic and electic fields in your papers. Therefore, perhaps a better is a levitation model than a planetary model.

Yes. Absolutely. Whay you name levitation model I name least action electromagnetic equilibrium resonance states. Allowed by the fact that energy is adiabatically induced in charged particles as a function of distance only by the Coulomb force:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

The planetary model can not explain the behavior of atoms more complex than the hydrogen atom.

I agree. You may find that the resonance mechanics that I analyze in the above paper may possibly explain atomic stability. It involves completely integrating the magnetic aspect of the energy induced.

The energy difference of 27.2 eV and 13.6 eV could be explained by the accumulation of magnetic energy during electron acceleration to the proton. This magnetic energy can increase the mass of the electron.

Exactly right. The magnetic energy is part of the second 13.6 eV not accounted for by the concept of momentum. This magnetic aspect is part of the transversally oriented oscillating electromagnetic component of the energy induced by the coulomb force. Analyzed in this paper:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197

Is the magnetic and electric field only a virtual mathematical description, or they are somehow arranged  substructures of the electron,  the positron or light? We can not see them through light, but that does not mean it can not exist! 

Absolutely. The "fields" are only virtual mathematical descriptions that Gauss introduced to help us visualize the Coulomb interaction between charged punctual bodies, but the energy is real and seems to locally always fall into electromagnetic equilibrium in this treefold geometric complex.

Interestingly, there are figures of magnetic and electric fields to explain Coulomb's law, which was designed from experimental measurements and not from the structures of these fields.

The symmetry of Coulomb's law for negative and positive charges should also be consistent with the symmetry of the principle (only the repulsion of electic lines), which may be reflected by attracting an electron with a positron or repelling two electrons.

I absolutely agree. I analyze the cases of electric attraction and repulsion in Section IV of this paper:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol8-issue1/B08011033.pdf

Best Regards

André
---

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

 

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:52:52 +0100 (CET), Pavel OŠMERA wrote:

Dear André,

your orthogonal structure of the 3-spaces model is very good for mathematical description. Unfortunately, 3D imagination does not allow.
In our avi is our speculative 3D model of the electron with magnetic field. There is a neglected magnetic field in the Bohr's model. Very important is energy equilibrium between magnetic and electic fields in your papers. Therefore, perhaps a better is a levitation model than a planetary model.
The planetary model can not explain the behavior of atoms more complex than the hydrogen atom.
The energy difference of 27.2 eV and 13.6 eV could be explained by the accumulation of magnetic energy during electron acceleration to the proton. This magnetic energy can increase the mass of the electron.
Is the magnetic and electric field only a virtual mathematical description, or they are somehow arranged substructures of the electron, the positron or light? We can not see them through light, but that does not mean it can not exist!
Interestingly, there are figures of magnetic and electric fields to explain Coulomb's law, which was designed from experimental measurements and not from the structures of these fields.
The symmetry of Coulomb's law for negative and positive charges should also be consistent with the symmetry of the principle (only the repulsion of electic lines), which may be reflected by attracting an electron with a positron or repelling two electrons.

Best regards

Pavel

Od: "André Michaud"
Komu: osmera at fme.vutbr.cz, general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Kopie: osmera at fme.vutbr.cz, srp2 at srpinc.org
Odesláno: pondělí, 18. prosinec 2017 19:03:25
Předmět: Re: [General] Your and Marmet's papers


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171219/bb3d049d/attachment.html>