[General] speculative model of photon 20.12.

[André Michaud]

Dear Pavel,

Yes, our various languages can be a huge barrier to communication of scientific research.

This is why Pavlov's work after 1928 (only in Russian and German), Hebb and Korzybski's work (only in English) and Chauchard's work (only in French) have not yet been correlated in the scientific community.

The two papers I referred previously are part of my project to help out in correlating their research.

To help out with the trispatial geometry, I progressively translate the papers to French, Spanish and German. Only partially done by now. My translations may not be perfect, but should be understandable. I even have one in Russian.

If German is easier for you,  many of the papers are already in German. You can access them in this index of the 3-spaces model by clicking on their titles in German:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/2460

Best Regards

André

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

 

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:01:39 +0100 (CET), Pavel OŠMERA wrote:

Dear André,

In points 7 and 12, I agree with you. This is a more accurate explanation of how the photon energy is distributed.

I had a compulsory Russian at school, and we could only receive in Brno (Czech republic) an Austrian television (in German), because Vienna is closer to Brno than Prague. At that time there was no satellite reception in English. I learned English late, so I have problems with English grammar and written form. Now I can help with the written text using Google Translater.
Thank you very much for the quick answer.

Best regards
Pavel

----- Původní zpráva -----
Od: "André Michaud"
Komu: osmera at fme.vutbr.cz, general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org, chipakins at gmail.com
Kopie: osmera at fme.vutbr.cz, srp2 at srpinc.org
Odesláno: středa, 20. prosinec 2017 14:54:19
Předmět: Re: speculative model of photon 19.12.


Dear Pavel,

I have been admiring your "Ring structure of matter" display yesterday night. I am into programming myself and always dreamed of becoming proficient in this type of programming, but life is short and I had more pressing matters to attend.

I observe that your method allows logically describing all inner relations within atomic and nuclear structures for the whole collection of atoms in the periodic table.

Note that it is possible to establish specific LC equations for the inner up and down quarks components of nucleons, and that the trispatial geometry also reveals that it may be possible to describe these quarks with the wave function in a more satisfying manner than Quantum Chromodynamics.

I find you preliminary conclusions generally consistent with the trispatial model. I have the following comments regarding your points 7 and 12:

To your point 7. "Two two-loop oscillators form a light quantum (one photon)."

Your point 7 would be more in focus with the trispatial photon model if reformulated as:
"The two-loop oscillators forms the electromagnetically oscillating half of a light quantum. The other half remains vectorially unidirectional in normal space, propelling the translationally inert transversally oscillating half."

To your point 12. "Both oscillators must move and rotate so they can exist. This creates a repulsive magnetic field between them. Therefore there can be no moving photons."

Your point 12 would be more in focus with the trispatial photon model if reformulated as:
"Both oscillators of the electromagnetically oscillating half must move and rotate so they can exist. This creates a repulsive magnetic field between them. Therefore this oscillating half of a photon energy cannot move on its own because it is omnidirectionally inert in space (being 'vectorially omnidirectionally inert' is the vectorial representation of 'electromagnetic mass')". The other half of its energy, which remains vectorially permanently unidirectional, propels it at equilibrium velocity c in space."

Regarding 'deep learning', I think that this is a major breakthrough for training multilayer neural networks, because this emulates the natural correlating process that remains to be described and that naturally takes place within the intercalary layers of the neocortex which is what allows us to draw conclusions.

I think that the 'deep learning' method closely parallels the iterative correlating sequences that we use to refine conclusions.

This correlating process is summarily put in perspective in this first paper and its correlation with language and Hebb's exploration of the structure and synaptic functions of the neocortex is more completely put in perspective in the second paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/comprehension-process-overview-2155-6180-1000317.pdf

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-the-relation-between-the-comprehension-ability-and-the-neocortexverbal-areas-2155-6180-1000331.pdf

Best Regards

André ---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/ On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 10:24:48 +0100 (CET), Pavel OŠMERA wrote:

Dear André,

"deep learning" is a very interesting book but has a lot of pages. I will read it during Christmas. Thank you very much.

Several preliminary conclusions:

1.Your light model with two LC oscillators is great. I had four oscillators in the upcoming paper. Two are just enough.
2.According to Chip's conclusions, the model must be very flat in the spreading axis ("c").
3.Our two-loop model (doubleloop.avi)is a good LC oscillator. It is only necessary to change the circular toroid profile with
a very flat ellipse. The second LC oscillator must oscillate with a phase shift of 180 degrees.
4.The fractal dimension will be somewhere between 1 and 2.
5.A flat structure does not mean that it can not have a spherical field.
6.I still have to draw pictures to explain how the two-loop oscillator oscillates and where it has electrical and magnetic fields.
7.Two two-loop oscillators form a light quantum (one photon).
8.These photons can create strings or even clusters.
9.It is then simple to use the two LC oscillators to explain the energy E = hf, which rotates around each other.
10.Both two-loop oscillators rotate around each other in a plane perpendicular to the direction of the photon movement.
11.Flat photons allow light to cross.
12.Both oscillators must move and rotate so they can exist. This creates a repulsive magnetic field between them.
Therefore there can be no moving photons.

Best regards

Pavel



I am downloading your file for the Ring structures of matter. My computer is slow, but the downloading is proceeding.

I observe that you work with neural networks. I wonder if you have been informed of this new technique that is being developped named "deep learning".

There is a research team based in Montreal who published this leading edge book on neural programming:

Here is a link:

http://www.deeplearningbook.org/

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



On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:26:22 +0100 (CET), Pavel OŠMERA wrote:

Dear André,

in:
http://www.pavelosmera.cz/public/ppt.html

is better 3D model of the electron. The avi-model of the electron can not be sent because it has a size 58 Mbyte. The title of .ppt presentation is "Ring structures of matter" and animation page name is "Fractal structure of electron with magnetic field"


Best regards
Pavel

----- Original Message -----
From: "André Michaud"
To: osmera at fme.vutbr.cz, general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: srp2 at srpinc.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 11:37:20 AM
Subject: Re: speculative model of the electron


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 exteD modelnded 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/20171220/adeac9bd/attachment.html>