Cont: Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3

[JeanTate]

Sorry you'll have to do better than that. His proposal is that leptons are 2 dimensional and can change shape or size this is not to make the math easy. You will have to read most of the book to understand all of the derivations. Your opinion is not correct.

<snip>

Riiight ... except that, AFAIK, no experiment has ever found that any lepton has a structure different than that of a point.

But perhaps you know of experiments which show that leptons do have structure ("are 2 dimensional and can change shape or size")? How about you post them, or links to peer-reviewed papers reporting such things?

 

[JeanTate]

From the section from gutcp that I posted

Thus it is useful to regard an electron as a special state photon. Page 67,68

More high quality nonsense (YMMV) ... like a photon except for the electric charge, spin, and mass. Oh, and that electron-electron collisions are easily observed, but photon-photon ones, well not so much.

And "state"? I thought Mills did not do QM, silly me.

 

[JeanTate]

Continuing ...

When a fully ionized atom - a "bare" nucleus - acquires an electron (think proton becoming an H atom, but this applies more generally), a photon is emitted, if the electron goes directly to the ground state. The spectrum is well defined. As I understand it, in Mills' idea, a disk becomes a sphere. But how does this transformation result in just one photon?

Commonly, the electron is acquired initially in a non-ground state, and undergoes one or more subsequent transitions to reach the ground state, with each transition giving a photon of well-defined energy, so the Balmer series, the Lyman series, etc (and equivalents for nuclei other than H). In Mills' idea, a sphere becomes a smaller sphere, instantly; how?

 

[The Man]

Just to clarify, Mills is not claiming that these rings actually exist, they are a mathematical tool used to describe the motion of the current on the 2-sphere.

From GUTCP latest edition starting on Page 67:

What current would that be? As I recall these "mathematical tool" loops of charge are also counter rotating. Meaning the results of that "mathematical tool" is no current.

 

[The Man]

For sure, good point.

That we have been over before, that counter-rotating loops of charge "mathematical tool used to describe the motion of the current on the 2-sphere." gives no "current on the 2-sphere".

 

[The Man]

Hey it wasn't me who started the sand analogy. It was only me who took it to ridiculous extremes.
A better picture would be this. Imagine a very rapidly spinning disk, vertical axis of rotation, spinning on the horizontal plane a few inches above the floor. Attached to the outer edges are hundreds of strong threads of equal length, and on the other end of each thread is a ballbearing. The thread and ballbearings are extended radially due to centrifugal force and form a circle as the disk spins. The evenly spaced ballbearings almost touch each other. Now we roll a volleyball towards the rapidly spinning object. What will happen when they collide? The ballbearings will effectively serve as the outer rim of an extended disk; the ball will hit it and bounce back as if it hit a solid, rigid disk. Yet there is no lateral force between the ballbearings.

No actually what happens (ignoring radial motion of the ball bearings) is some of the ball bearings strike the volleyball slowing them down. Which are then stuck by the still faster ball bearings. You have simply substituted the rigidity of the individual ball bearings for the overall rigidity of the shell.

Not ignoring radial motion of the ball bearings, some of the ball bearings become displaced radially towards the center of rotation. The transfer of momentum to the ball bearings will slow the volleyball radially. Those displaced ball bearings will continue inward radially until contacting the inner disc. The rdigity or elasticity of that inner disc will rebound the ball bearings and volleyball radially outward again.

So you have simply replaced the rigidity of the shell with that of the the individual ball bearings and of the inner disc.

As for lateral rigidity and transfer of lateral forces your rapidly spinning disk has that, keeping the anchor points for your threads from bunching up.

 

[optiongeek]

Creative, I’ll give you that.

Each “orbiting point” on the sphere belongs to an infinite (countable?) number of rings, all of which have the same radius and center. The rings’ orientations are evenly distributed. And for every ring rotating one direction, there’s one - and only one - ring rotating in the opposite direction.

I intend to explore this, in relation to known behavior of electrons, over the next few posts.

For now, just this: how do these rings get created? Recall that an isolated electron is a disk, presumably without rotating rings. And when? Only when the sphere is fully formed? Or is there some intermediate stage?

I don't intend to get sucked in the maelstrom - folks here seem to be on a hair trigger with the personal insults. However, at the risk of exposing myself to ridicule, I think there is an interesting mathematical result that was motivated from how Mills' orbitsphere can satisfy the boundary condition of the Stern-Gerlach results. I am new so I can't post the link. However, Israelsson found that a uniform covering of an ensemble of geodesics (i.e. great circles) with a combined angular momentum of h_bar may not exceed 1/2 h_bar of angular momentum in the z-axis. You can find his proof on Stack Exchange by searching for "maximal principle uniform covering of a sphere with uniform geodesics".

In other words, the Stern-Gerlach result indicates that the electron has 1/2 h_bar of net angular momentum in the z-axis, but a magnetic moment of a full h_bar. From Isrealsson, this turns about to be the maximum net angular momentum along the z-axis from a uniform covering of geodesics like we see in the orbitsphere. I don't believe Mills was even aware of this result when the constructed the orbitsphere.

 

[The Man]

I don't intend to get sucked in the maelstrom - folks here seem to be on a hair trigger with the personal insults. However, at the risk of exposing myself to ridicule, I think there is an interesting mathematical result that was motivated from how Mills' orbitsphere can satisfy the boundary condition of the Stern-Gerlach results. I am new so I can't post the link. However, Israelsson found that a uniform covering of an ensemble of geodesics (i.e. great circles) with a combined angular momentum of h_bar may not exceed 1/2 h_bar of angular momentum in the z-axis. You can find his proof on Stack Exchange by searching for "maximal principle uniform covering of a sphere with uniform geodesics".

In other words, the Stern-Gerlach result indicates that the electron has 1/2 h_bar of net angular momentum in the z-axis, but a magnetic moment of a full h_bar. From Isrealsson, this turns about to be the maximum net angular momentum along the z-axis from a uniform covering of geodesics like we see in the orbitsphere. I don't believe Mills was even aware of this result when the constructed the orbitsphere.

The problem, optiongeek, is that Mills models the electron, in and of itself, as a disk not a sphere. So projections of its free properties, like its intrinsic spin, onto a sphere, even a sphere of uniform geodesics, is incompatible with that model.

ETA: Oh and welcome to the forum and the thread.

 

[optiongeek]

The problem, optiongeek, is that Mills models the electron, in and of itself, as a disk not a sphere. So projections of its free properties, like its intrinsic spin, onto a sphere, even a sphere of uniform geodesics, is incompatible with that model.

ETA: Oh and welcome to the forum and the thread.

Thanks for the response. However, the change in curvature of the electron from flat to positive when transitioning from a free state to bound state is a vital aspect of GUTCP. According to Mills, transitioning to a positive curvature is responsible for i) the origin of gravity in normal matter (a free electron is not gravitationally attracted to other mass) and ii) reduces the electron from a net angular momentum in the z-axis from h_bar to 1/2 h_bar. There is some evidential support for the idea that free electrons do not experience gravity. AFAIK, it's not possible to experimentally determine the net angular momentum of a free electron - this has only ever been attempted on neutral species.

 

[The Man]

Thanks for the response. However, the change in curvature of the electron from flat to positive when transitioning from a free state to bound state is a vital aspect of GUTCP. According to Mills, transitioning to a positive curvature is responsible for i) the origin of gravity in normal matter (a free electron is not gravitationally attracted to other mass) and ii) reduces the electron from a net angular momentum in the z-axis from h_bar to 1/2 h_bar. There is some evidential support for the idea that free electrons do not experience gravity. AFAIK, it's not possible to experimentally determine the net angular momentum of a free electron - this has only ever been attempted on neutral species.

No crap, flat to curved is a "change in curvature" and a "vital aspect of GUTCP". Perhaps you can do better at explaining that actual transitioning than others here.

As for the 'evidential support for the idea that free electrons do not experience gravity." We've probably been over that already.

Looks like Mills has some actual things to test for his "GUTCP" i) "(a free electron is not gravitationally attracted to other mass)" and ii) the intrinsic spin of a free electron is "h_bar". Do please let us know how that testing goes.


Proposals and attempts have been made for experiments with charged particles.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=physicsgay

The conflict between Bohr’s assertion that the magnetic moment of the electron cannot be measured with experiments based on the concept of classical trajectories, and the measurement of the magnetic moment of electrons in a modified Penning trap by Dehmelt et al. has led us to reevaluate other implications of Bohr’s assertion. We show that, contrary to the analysis of Bohr and Pauli, the assumption of classical trajectories in a Stern-Gerlach–like device can result in a high degree of spin
separation for an electron beam. This effect may persist within a fully quantum-mechanical analysis. The magnetic fields considered are such that a tabletop Stern-Gerlach electron spin filter is feasible

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.501.2333&rep=rep1&type=pdf


Just recently Mills' rings of charge were touted (apparently primarily by Mills) as just a mathematical tool and not a physical model. The assertion of a sphere of uniform geodesics seems to want to invoke the physicality of that model instead.

 

[optiongeek]

Just recently Mills' rings of charge were touted (apparently primarily by Mills) as just a mathematical tool and not a physical model. The assertion of a sphere of uniform geodesics seems to want to invoke the physicality of that model instead.

Sorry but I'm unfamiliar with this claim (that the great circle current loops are a mathematical construct and not a physical manifestation). I'm not doubting it, but do you happen to have a reference? On the surface it seems an uncharacteristic thing for Mills to say.

 

[jsfisher]

The orbit sphere has an identifiable Z-axis?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Guys, come on .. Mills isn't really offering scientific theory .. he's making a sales pitch.

 

[Dancing David]

Also, these rotating rings - which have mass and charge - intersect without any effect in both shells and disks ... yet a ring in one electron most certainly reacts when it intersects with a ring in another electron. How come?

From the section from gutcp that I posted

Thus it is useful to regard an electron as a special state photon. Page 67,68

 

[optiongeek]

The orbit sphere has an identifiable Z-axis?

Yes - the orbitsphere model has a total of h_bar of angular momentum broken down into vector components:

L_z = 0.5 h_bar,

L_xy = +/- 0.25 h_bar.​

As I mentioned, this alignment of angular momentum vectors exactly matches the result of the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

 

[UncertainH]

More high quality nonsense (YMMV) ... like a photon except for the electric charge, spin, and mass. Oh, and that electron-electron collisions are easily observed, but photon-photon ones, well not so much.

And "state"? I thought Mills did not do QM, silly me.

Hmm, take two photons of sufficient energy in the presence of matter to absorb the excess momentum and you get an electron and a positron. Pair production - no other ingredients except light. Been demonstrated since the 40s as I recall. So we can make matter out of light. The word "state" in the above sentence should not be confused with state space in QM. Mills is suggesting that a lepton is a photon confined to a region of space.

 

[The Man]

Sorry but I'm unfamiliar with this claim (that the great circle current loops are a mathematical construct and not a physical manifestation). I'm not doubting it, but do you happen to have a reference? On the surface it seems an uncharacteristic thing for Mills to say.

It was just a page or so ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12534745#post12534745

 

[The Man]

Hmm, take two photons of sufficient energy in the presence of matter to absorb the excess momentum and you get an electron and a positron. Pair production - no other ingredients except light. Been demonstrated since the 40s as I recall. So we can make matter out of light. The word "state" in the above sentence should not be confused with state space in QM. Mills is suggesting that a lepton is a photon confined to a region of space.

Sure pair production, not just electron production. When Mills can actually produce just an electron by just confining a photon "to a region of space", be sure to let us know.

 

[optiongeek]

It was just a page or so ago.

Thanks - much appreciated. I can certainly see why the text can admit that interpretation. My own sense is that Mills would likely object to the notion that he's providing a mathematical description instead of a physical one but I won't deny the language is vague.

 

[JeanTate]

Yes - the orbitsphere model has a total of h_bar of angular momentum broken down into vector components:

L_z = 0.5 h_bar,

L_xy = +/- 0.25 h_bar.​

As I mentioned, this alignment of angular momentum vectors exactly matches the result of the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

Interesting.

But completely irrelevant ... our reliable Mills fans have repeatedly informed us that free electrons are flat discs, not orbitspheres.