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

[W.D.Clinger]

I have a concrete suggestion which may help you, markie.

Consider a point charge, and a rigid, charged ring (an infinitely thin, perfect circle). Let the total charge on the ring be equal to that of the point charge. Let the charge on the ring be distributed uniformly. Assume no other forces. Assume the ring and point are not moving, relative to each other. And so on.

The aim is to calculate the net force of the ring on the point (and vice versa).

Start with the point being in the same plane as the ring, so you need consider 2D only.

Take the case of the point being outside the ring. What is the force between the point and a point on the ring? It will, of course, be a vector.

I urge you to do this yourself, markie. If you need help, just ask.

I take your point.

No, I don't think you do.

However, what happens when we take your starting condition (with ring in the XY plane), and then imagine an infinitesimal perturbation of the central charge in the +Z direction. What would the force on the central charge be now? Where would the central charge want to move to minimize energy?

If you had understood JeanTate's point, you wouldn't be asking that question.

Please do the math, optiongeek. It's first-year calculus.

If you can't even do a first-year calculus problem, then all the confidence you've been expressing in Mills's calculations is of no evidentiary value, for you or for anyone else, because you are simply not qualified to judge.

 

[hecd2]

Not just that hecd2 but here by "a balancing outward centrifugal 'force'" markie is claiming the centripetal force is 'balanced' by an opposing force. Hence no net centripetal force results to accelerate the "shell" towards the center. All points, parts or whatever on the shell would just proceed at their tangential velocity away from the center.

Yes, but I think that’s not quite what Markie is claiming. If he was able to express himself in terms that a physicist would use, I think he’d say something like “all infinitesimal charge and mass elements on the orbitsphere have a tangential velocity, and the Coulomb force between the proton and each element causes a centripetal acceleration which keeps the element in orbit - altering the direction of the velocity vector”. Of course, as we know, it is not possible for all charge and mass elements on the sphere to have a non-zero velocity. If the shell is rigid, it is unstable. If it has no self interaction, then it is merely a collection of independently orbiting elements which would not form a shell (the general orbit of a mass orbiting a point with an inverse square attractive force is not a circle but an ellipse), and any perturbation would cause catastrophic instability.

 

[The Man]

Yes, but I think that’s not quite what Markie is claiming. If he was able to express himself in terms that a physicist would use, I think he’d say something like “all infinitesimal charge and mass elements on the orbitsphere have a tangential velocity, and the Coulomb force between the proton and each element causes a centripetal acceleration which keeps the element in orbit - altering the direction of the velocity vector”. Of course, as we know, it is not possible for all charge and mass elements on the sphere to have a non-zero velocity. If the shell is rigid, it is unstable. If it has no self interaction, then it is merely a collection of independently orbiting elements which would not form a shell (the general orbit of a mass orbiting a point with an inverse square attractive force is not a circle but an ellipse), and any perturbation would cause catastrophic instability.

Actually that the centrifugal force counters the centripetal force is exactly what he is saying and has repeatedly said a number of time. The intent is that such balance somehow results in the proton station keeping result he is after. However, the actual application of a force equal and opposite to the centripetal force just cancels the centripetal force and you get no orbit. Naturally, if he were able to express himself in terms of actual applied physics he wouldn't be suggesting the proton station keeping at all.

The problem seems to be that they require a stable orbit for the orbital sphere and the proton to remain centered. However, since nothing in orbital mechanics requires orbits to be stable, circular or even just circular when stable they have to just make some crap up like balanced opposing forces. Which, unfortunately, often has the result of eliminating something they require. Like the centripetal force and as a result the orbit itself.

 

[hecd2]

No, I don't think you do.


If you had understood JeanTate's point, you wouldn't be asking that question.

Please do the math, optiongeek. It's first-year calculus.

If you can't even do a first-year calculus problem, then all the confidence you've been expressing in Mills's calculations is of no evidentiary value, for you or for anyone else, because you are simply not qualified to judge.

I might be wrong, but I don’t think this is a first year calculus problem. If I remember right the integrals are not straightforward (or even closed form?).

 

[JeanTate]

I might be wrong, but I don’t think this is a first year calculus problem. If I remember right the integrals are not straightforward (or even closed form?).

One step at a time ...

I think the first (and so far only) question that I asked doesn't require calculus at all (hilite added):

What is the force between the point and a point on the ring?

Yes, there's a (deliberate) ambiguity in this question; let's see if either markie or optiongeek can find it!

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Also a point markie may not be aware of is that "collapse of the wave function" is a misnomer. The wavefunction can become more defined about a particular value but it never 'collapses' in the way (no longer a wave function) that markie's inferred lack of surfing ability is intended to represent.

In fact in becoming more defined about a particular position (a more defined central peak) a wave packet becomes less defined (requires a greater spread) in frequency components that comprise that packet. Similarly a more defined energy (more confined frequency spread) results in a broader less defined peak (less well defined position for the packet). So in one aspect becoming more defined, or 'collapsing' another aspect must become less defined, broader in scope or in other words be expanded.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet

You are correct. Measurement at a position means entangling with a "peaky" measurement wavefunction. This, by itself is not collapse.

The collapse problem in QM is real, however. It is the reason for all the QM interpretations. It shows up in Quantum Cosmology as a real problem, because it means that the universe contains all possible histories at once, and none are preferred.

Collapse is not part of QM. It is an empirical requirement, but there is no mathematics for it. The Schrodinger equation has no provision for collapse, because it is linear. Some non-linearity would be required for collapse, and that could break energy conservation laws.

Decoherence Theory does explain apparent collapse of any quantum System Under Test (SUT), by modelling the environment as separate from the SUT. Measurement means environmental entanglement, which can be shown to turn the Hamiltonian of the SUT diagonal (classical) with respect to the environment.

However, the problem for Quantum Cosmology is that now the environment and the SUT (and a human observer) are all entangled, but what measures them? The problem of infinite regression leads to an entangled universe, and infinite histories.

Physicists ignore the problem, because we know that collapse must occur, but it likely occurs at such a high amount of entropy, that we can't test any theories. Actually, in many simple cases, it is best to just assume that collapse is immediate (subject to probabilities) with the measurement system. It is wrong, but no-one usually cares about the chain of entanglement that leads to decoherence.

 

[Reality Check]

Realizes how wrong he has been but then writes "my shell" delusions

Missed this one. For sure I have failed, and so largely have you guys, except perhaps HappySkeptic. ...

Realizes how wrong he has been but then writes "my shell" delusions.

Mills' gibberish about currents does not hide the fact that Mills states that the shell exists! Mills has a "inherently rigid and unmoveable and static" shell that the shell theorem states has a zero net force on the proton inside it. Thus Mills has an unstable H atom where the proton blasts thru the shell whenever the atoms collide.

2 years of analysis of Mills book listing the ignorance, lies and delusions in it

markie's insanity of making up a "my shell" with his own delusions.

Deep stupidity of "orbital tangental velocity" when his state of abysmal ignorance of physics means he has no idea what this does. We now have a rotating charged shell. That means the charges in it are accelerating and emitting detectable energy. Mills' insanity of abusing the non-radiation condition for a collection of charges does not help here.

A "laws of orbital mechanics" delusion. The laws of orbital mechanics include the shell theorem . A mass inside a shell has not net force on it and is as unstable as a proton inside a charged shell.

The laws of orbital mechanics for a body (not a shell) in orbit around another body say that a body with an orbital speed v will orbit at a given distance, r = v^2/GM for a circular orbit.

I dare markie to plug in the numbers and see what the laws of orbital mechanics say the size of Mills delusion is.

 

[Reality Check]

markie delusions about Mills delusions and physics again

Most people here would know that the orbital altitude of a satellite is dependent on its orbital velocity.

markie delusions about Mills delusions and physics again.
Lies that's Mills delusions are a body orbiting another body when it is an electron as a shell around a proton.

If markie know anything about orbital mechanics or Wikipedia, markie would do the calculation of the size of his delusion about an electron as a "orbital altitude of a satellite is dependent on its orbital velocity".

If markie knew anything about electromagnetism he would know how insanely ignorant an electron as a charged body orbiting an proton is. The radiation leading to a tiny lifetime of all elements is textbook physics. Even Mills is not insane enough to states that - thus his deluded shell with its different problems.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Realizes how wrong he has been but then writes "my shell" delusions.

Mills' gibberish about currents does not hide the fact that Mills states that the shell exists! Mills has a "inherently rigid and unmoveable and static" shell that the shell theorem states has a zero net force on the proton inside it. Thus Mills has an unstable H atom where the proton blasts thru the shell whenever the atoms collide.

2 years of analysis of Mills book listing the ignorance, lies and delusions in it

markie's insanity of making up a "my shell" with his own delusions.

Deep stupidity of "orbital tangental velocity" when his state of abysmal ignorance of physics means he has no idea what this does. We now have a rotating charged shell. That means the charges in it are accelerating and emitting detectable energy. Mills' insanity of abusing the non-radiation condition for a collection of charges does not help here.

Actually, provided the loops of the shell are exactly circular, and there is no oscillatory motion of the loops with respect the central proton, there will be no farfield radiation. It is not acceleration of an individual charge that causes the radiation, but rather the plane wave coefficients of the Fourier Transform of the changing charge density.

Mills is right that pretending the electron is in at all places around the proton at once will create a non-radiation condition (as opposed to QM which says that the wave exists around the proton all at once, but the electron has no position).

Really, Mills is just reifying the QM wavefunction into a fixed shell. The math doesn't allow it (stability, problems with his vector field, and no generating equation, and wrong answers), but not because of the radiation problem.

However, once his shell gets disturbed in the slightest, there is non classical reason why the it won't then radiate. Mills needs QM after all. The only part of QM that Mills apparently doesn't like, is the part that actually explains a wavefunction for the 1-electron atom -- the easiest thing for QM to do.

 

[The Man]

You are correct. Measurement at a position means entangling with a "peaky" measurement wavefunction. This, by itself is not collapse.

The collapse problem in QM is real, however. It is the reason for all the QM interpretations. It shows up in Quantum Cosmology as a real problem, because it means that the universe contains all possible histories at once, and none are preferred.

Collapse is not part of QM. It is an empirical requirement, but there is no mathematics for it. The Schrodinger equation has no provision for collapse, because it is linear. Some non-linearity would be required for collapse, and that could break energy conservation laws.

Decoherence Theory does explain apparent collapse of any quantum System Under Test (SUT), by modelling the environment as separate from the SUT. Measurement means environmental entanglement, which can be shown to turn the Hamiltonian of the SUT diagonal (classical) with respect to the environment.

However, the problem for Quantum Cosmology is that now the environment and the SUT (and a human observer) are all entangled, but what measures them? The problem of infinite regression leads to an entangled universe, and infinite histories.

Physicists ignore the problem, because we know that collapse must occur, but it likely occurs at such a high amount of entropy, that we can't test any theories. Actually, in many simple cases, it is best to just assume that collapse is immediate (subject to probabilities) with the measurement system. It is wrong, but no-one usually cares about the chain of entanglement that leads to decoherence.

One of the reasons I've always prefered "decoherence" of the wave functions over "collapse" of the wave function. It puts the question properly where the problem is.

Also why I've always had an interest in Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory and the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation.

To paraphrase Churchill 'History is written by the absorber'


http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mijp1/transaction/TI_toc.html

One of the problems with the TI has been developing it as a quantum field theory. While I did find some vague references lately, I didn't find anything concrete.

 

[Reality Check]

...Mills is right that pretending the electron is in at all places around the proton at once will create a non-radiation condition (as opposed to QM which says that the wave exists around the proton all at once, but the electron has no position).

You missed the actual problem with what Mills does.
This is the non-radiation condition

Classical nonradiation conditions define the conditions according to classical electromagnetism under which a distribution of accelerating charges will not emit electromagnetic radiation. According to the Larmor formula in classical electromagnetism, a single point charge under acceleration will emit electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light. In some classical electron models a distribution of charges can however be accelerated so that no radiation is emitted.[1] The modern derivation of these nonradiation conditions by Hermann A. Haus is based on the Fourier components of the current produced by a moving point charge. It states that a distribution of accelerated charges will radiate if and only if it has Fourier components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light.[2]

It is derived from a moving point charge for a distribution of accelerated charges.

Mills knows this (see page 1689). Mills has no point charges or accelerated charges! Mills does not like point particles, e.g. that QM has them. Mills delusion has "charge-density functions".

The QM comment is not quite right. QM says that an electron has position. The wave function includes positions. The Copenhagen (and other) interpretation is that the measurement of that position involves probability, thus the picture of the electron orbitals as "clouds".

 

[W.D.Clinger]

One step at a time ...

I think the first (and so far only) question that I asked doesn't require calculus at all (hilite added):

What is the force between the point and a point on the ring?

Yes, there's a (deliberate) ambiguity in this question; let's see if either markie or optiongeek can find it!

JeanTate did not mention calculus.

I was the one who mentioned calculus. I'll try to respond to hecd2 without giving too much away.

JeanTate wants to take this one step at a time, so piggy-backing my own point(s) on top of his may have been a bit out of line. On the other hand, JeanTate was addressing markie, while I was responding to optiongeek.

I might be wrong, but I don’t think this is a first year calculus problem. If I remember right the integrals are not straightforward (or even closed form?).

Although I mentioned calculus, I didn't say anything about integrals or closed form. Not all calculus problems involve integrals or closed form solutions to integrals. Calculus has more to do with limits than integrals; I thought that point (notice the pun) might fit with JeanTate's question. Definite integrals are just one particular kind of limit.

Whether a definite integral has a solution in closed form is not important here. That is a point I have been trying to make and optiongeek has been failing to appreciate:

As I suspected, optiongeek does not understand that solutions need not be in closed form. Most of the solutions we obtain from physics (including classical physics, not just quantum mechanics) are not in closed form, so we use numerical methods when we need numbers.

Randell L Mills has fostered the false belief that solutions don't count as solutions unless they are in closed form. optiongeek has bought into that, just as optiongeek has accepted the Millsian rant against numerical methods.

Although Mills and optiongeek both reject numerical methods as "approximate", they are considerably less approximate than the Millsian equations (e.g. (10.48)), as has been pointed out in this thread.

I suspect JeanTate's point is qualitative rather than quantitative, so I don't think it matters whether some integral that might somehow be related to JeanTate's point has a solution in closed form. I don't even think it matters whether coming up with such an integral is a problem first-year calculus students should be able to solve.

I do think students in first-year calculus should be able to translate JeanTate's problem into a limit, but I suppose that depends on where you went to school, which instructor(s) taught the section of calculus you took, and how much attention you paid when you took the course.

Randell L Mills got his chemistry degree from Franklin and Marshall College. Apart from that one data point, which does not bode well, I am not really in any position to judge whether a pre-med/chemistry major at Franklin and Marshall College would have been taught how to set up that limit. Let me revise my claim to say only that people who have taken first-year calculus courses should know how to set up that limit.

 

[Reality Check]

Really, Mills is just reifying the QM wavefunction into a fixed shell.

Mills is so abysmal ignorant about and in denial of QM that he cannot be "reifying" it.
Actual reifying of QM is the interpretations of QM that treat the wave function as real, e.g. de Broglie–Bohm theory, and they get the same results as other interpretations. The electron is actually at the positions inside the orbitals which have the same shapes from balls to donuts.

 

[Reality Check]

Actually, provided the loops of the shell are exactly circular, and there is no oscillatory motion of the loops with respect the central proton, there will be no farfield radiation. ...

What is your source for this, HappySkeptic99?
It sounds wrong because Mills delusion has "loops of the shell".
A electromagnetism textbook might look at loops of charged particles that happen to be at the same distance from central charge.

 

[hecd2]

JeanTate did not mention calculus.

I was the one who mentioned calculus. I'll try to respond to hecd2 without giving too much away.

JeanTate wants to take this one step at a time, so piggy-backing my own point(s) on top of his may have been a bit out of line. On the other hand, JeanTate was addressing markie, while I was responding to optiongeek.


Although I mentioned calculus, I didn't say anything about integrals or closed form. Not all calculus problems involve integrals or closed form solutions to integrals. Calculus has more to do with limits than integrals; I thought that point (notice the pun) might fit with JeanTate's question. Definite integrals are just one particular kind of limit.

Whether a definite integral has a solution in closed form is not important here. That is a point I have been trying to make and optiongeek has been failing to appreciate:



I suspect JeanTate's point is qualitative rather than quantitative, so I don't think it matters whether some integral that might somehow be related to JeanTate's point has a solution in closed form. I don't even think it matters whether coming up with such an integral is a problem first-year calculus students should be able to solve.

I do think students in first-year calculus should be able to translate JeanTate's problem into a limit, but I suppose that depends on where you went to school, which instructor(s) taught the section of calculus you took, and how much attention you paid when you took the course.

Randell L Mills got his chemistry degree from Franklin and Marshall College. Apart from that one data point, which does not bode well, I am not really in any position to judge whether a pre-med/chemistry major at Franklin and Marshall College would have been taught how to set up that limit. Let me revise my claim to say only that people who have taken first-year calculus courses should know how to set up that limit.

I don’t think we should get much further ahead of ourselves and spoil Jean’s sequence of questions. Suffice it to say that not only do I agree with what you say above, but the integral that I was thinking of (which you have to arrive at if you want to determine the general solution to the problem) can easily and accurately be evaluated numerically, even if there is no closed form solution. But even arriving at the integral requires a bit of manipulation that is probably beyond first year calculus students. I do take your point about limits.

As for people not understanding that solutions need not be closed form, I remember a frustrating discussion with someone who insisted that the fact that there is no analytical solution to the general three body problem means that Newtonian mechanics is flawed (“wrong” was the word I think he used). Of course there are limits to the applicability of Newtonian mechanics, but this isn’t one.

 

[markie]

That's a good start. It has nothing to do with immovable and static -- it only has to do with the shape remaining a spherical shell.

Oh but it does matter, and makes all the difference.

We have gone over this before. "orbits" are for an independent body moving around the nucleus. If the "electron" were a billion individual pieces, separately orbiting the nucleus, then they would indeed be subject to orbital mechanics.

Then you would have a host of new problems, like how is the total energy conserved when the pieces are independent? If independent, they would not end up in a shell, but instead a cloud, each with varying energy and ellipsoidal shape. If not independent, you need to invent magicalforces that pull the errant pieces back into a shell shape over time.

Better to think of it as one membrane with inherent motions described as precessing rings of infinitesimal mass and charge. The membrane is in perfect force balance in a 2D surface. The cloud notion you imagine is a fantasy from from QM. QM doesn't even know what the cloud is actually composed of, if anything.

However, Mills does not propose independent bodies. Instead, he imagines a set of superconducting hoops, which themselves have no mass, but on which the "pieces" of the electron move. Mills does not state the properties of this the hoops (elasticity, rigidity, etc.), so we can assume they have none. They are simply a way for the electron "pieces" to go around in a loop. I think of it as water in a massless and infinitely-stretchy hula-hoop.

Having an infinitesimal mass is different that 'no' mass. And the loop does have rigidity due to force balance tension of the extreme forces involved.

We are told that the electron density around the loop is constant, but I see no reason for this to be the case, unless, like water, the electron "pieces" are not compressible around the hoop.

Electron density is too vague. Mills speaks in terms of charge density and also current density. The current density for a non radiating membrane must be uniform. The charge density can vary however, and appears as a wave of charge and mass excess that traverses the orbitpshere surface, giving orbital angular momentum in addition to the usual spin type of angular momentum.

Yes, the tangential motion of the electron "pieces" in the hula-hoop are what keeps everything from collapsing.

How is it that you are the only person who acknowledges this?

We assume the hoop can expand and contract at need. The problem is, that neither a deformable loop, nor a rigid loop (with the exception of the one precessing case you found earlier) with a uniform electron-piece density around it, can be in a stable orbit. If multiple loops make a shell, then the shell does even worse at being stable. A rigid shell has no restoring force for the central proton, and a deformable shell (which I think it must be) is not stable either.

The loop is not deformable, it is rigid because it is kept at very high force balance tension. That tension is between inward coulombic force and outward centrifugal force. And again, the restoring force has to do with orbital mechanics of motion, not a coulombic restoring force from the shell.
You are only speculating that it is not stable.

The problem is the inability for the "pieces" to change radius and phase independently. They are like pieces of a rotating linked chain, which is not stable once the attractive force goes off center. The pieces of a linked chain do not orbit.

The rotating and precessing rings are not independent of each other ; their movements are part of a coordinated whole. They are coordinated, I imagine, because such coordination represents an energy minimum.
The attractive force cannot go off centre. If it does, that means the atom is in the process of losing its electron.

And, frankly, how do these individual loops all share pieces of the overall energy under perturbation? There is no equation that gives stability or explains the dynamic behavior. What you are describing makes sense to you, but doesn't really make sense. This is a classical situation. In real orbits, a perturbation causes a change, until a new equilibrium is found (a new elliptical orbit). In QM, a perturbation causes a chance of energy transfer, but the wave equation is quite stable (wave diffraction creates a new stable wave, and some entanglement with the perturbation). The orbitsphere, under perturbation, will not be stable.

The orbitsphere under minor perturbation remains stable, while the whole atom is perturbed and moves. The orbitsphere is constrained to have a constant spin angular momentum and a constant mass, and thus, a constant velocity, and thus remains at a fixed orbital distance from the nucleus, which is another way of saying that the proton is locked into the centre.

 

[markie]

I have a concrete suggestion which may help you, markie.

Consider a point charge, and a rigid, charged ring (an infinitely thin, perfect circle). Let the total charge on the ring be equal to that of the point charge. Let the charge on the ring be distributed uniformly. Assume no other forces. Assume the ring and point are not moving, relative to each other. And so on.

The aim is to calculate the net force of the ring on the point (and vice versa).

Start with the point being in the same plane as the ring, so you need consider 2D only.

Take the case of the point being outside the ring. What is the force between the point and a point on the ring? It will, of course, be a vector.

I urge you to do this yourself, markie. If you need help, just ask.

How odd. Why would you 'urge' me to do something that does not pertain to the orbitsphere?

 

[markie]

Seems like you missed this one too:

Whatever causes the shell from collapsing, whether it is tangential velocity at every point (and for the moment we’ll ignore the fact that the tangential velocity cannot be non-zero at every point on the sphere according to the hairy ball theorem, or every cow has at least one cow-lick, or any well behaved vector field on a 2-sphere has at least one zero), or whether it is because the shell is rigid, is irrelevant to the force experienced by the proton. That force is zero at all locations within the sphere, and therefore there is no constraining force on the proton and it is free to move within the sphere. For the scenario where the tangential velocity prevents the shell from collapsing (ie the shell is not rigid), a non-central location of the proton will exert a non-uniform force per unit area on the shell, which will cause it to distort and collapse into the proton. The non-rigid, deformable orbit sphere supported by orbital mechanics is even more unstable than a rigid shell.

In either case, the orbitsphere concept fails.

Exactly the type of thinking that concludes that two photons crossing at 180 degrees each must have their velocity equal to zero for a brief instant. Unphysical and ridiculous.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How odd. Why would you 'urge' me to do something that does not pertain to the orbitsphere?

To remind you of reality, perhaps?

Dave

 

[markie]

Also a point markie may not be aware of is that "collapse of the wave function" is a misnomer. The wavefunction can become more defined about a particular value but it never 'collapses' in the way (no longer a wave function) that markie's inferred lack of surfing ability is intended to represent.

In fact in becoming more defined about a particular position (a more defined central peak) a wave packet becomes less defined (requires a greater spread) in frequency components that comprise that packet. Similarly a more defined energy (more confined frequency spread) results in a broader less defined peak (less well defined position for the packet). So in one aspect becoming more defined, or 'collapsing' another aspect must become less defined, broader in scope or in other words be expanded.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet

Yes it is a bit of a misnomer. Only an aspect of the wave function collapses. One aspect (like position) becomes a discrete value and 'known'. The complimentary (or conjugate) aspect (momentum) then becomes the opposite of known and truly loses any kind of defined value. There goes another classical conservation law down the drain. Of course I'll side with Einstein and say hogwash.