Re: self-field theory
- From: "tony fleming" <tfleming1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Jan 2007 15:05:17 -0800
On Jan 25, 4:09 pm, Kerry.Thur...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:48 pm, "tony fleming" <tflemi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 24, 1:34 pm, "tony fleming" <tflemi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 24, 6:55 am, Don Lancaster <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:05:32 -0800, tony fleming wrote:
Don W wrote:
"tony fleming" <tflemi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote...
<snip>
So I see SMALL 'batteries' using fusion technology as a way to go. IT
will take a focussed, collaboratorial approach, like Los Alamos, but
I'm sure it's doable. .
What exactly is "coherent" sound energy? Do you need a SASER to make
that?
Don W.
Don, outside of the text book, we (you and i) is in YOUR hands my friend,
and all those other experimental bods who need to do their thang and
fiddle with another parameter that gets put into the mix. I just know
that one way to raise the temperature of the current in the toriod is by
suitable sonar energy being pumped into the toroid at a suitable
orientation around the toriod.
You'd be ever so much more interesting if you would tell us exactly how
you "know" this. Do you have any idea of the plasma density in a
tokomak? Or especially what the "temperature of the current" is.
It may be that we can raise the
temperature of the ions and thus reduce the non-linear turbulence in the
plasma by not driving the plasma so hard with other means of temperature
raising. Whether it is SASER or some other form of sonar energy I'm not
sure.
Archie Pu is still way ahead of you, but I think you may be gaining on
him. You passed habshi several days ago.
Bill WardSurely you are not suggesting thay are approaching the Femtohannon level.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xmlemail: d...@xxxxxxxxxx
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com-Hidequotedtext -- Show quoted text -No, Don
I'm saying sonar energy will promote the underlying reactions WITHOUT
the need for otherwise high temperatures as in today's tokamaks. The
underlying equations become modified by the presence of glons in the
plasma mix. If we use EMR and sonar together we get gluons at a
certain frequency which modify for instance the reaction
D2 + D2 → He3 + n1 + 3.27 MeV
T3 + H1 + 4.03 MeV
which takes place if the ion temperature, Ti, and the ion number
density, ni, are large enough.
So the gluons modify this underlying reaction. NOw the plasma densitychemistry".
needs not be so high nor the temperature.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -ok, lets see what self-field theory says about the underlying "photon
Is photon chemistry your invention?
I don't like the word "invention". It is a "formulation", much like
quantum field theory. It is based on straightforward mathematics that
has just been published in Physics Essays. You will find an early
version of the paper (including typos and errors) at
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/UP_EM_self_fields_all_in_one_revb_Nov_08_04.pdf.
The main differences of this "new" electromagnetics formulation is a
transformation of coordinates to centres of motion (2D) rather than
point-to-point (1D). Effectively what this acheives is an E-field, or
photon, whose motions have two orthogonal rotations associated with it.
THe H-field also becomes similarly based on these 'bispionorial'
photons. Note that the spinors are NOT like Diracs, that are basically
mathematical; in the present case the spinors are 'physical'. Now, the
photon becomes a COMPOSITE, much like the hydrogen atom, that consists
of two sub-particles. Hence there is no uncertainty 'principle'
associated with its fields and we don't get probabilistic solutions,
but eigenvalue solutions to the Maxwell-Lorentz equations. The Maxwell
divergence equations allow us to specify the form of the fields, while
the curl equations taken with the Lorentz equations allow us to solve a
system of differential equations.
Note the difference to the integral equations of QFT. I like to point
out the analogy between finite element methods and finite difference
methods which is similar to the differences between QFT and SFT. Hence
gauge is a constant of integration in QFT, while it is the div
equations in SFT.
The big difference between this "new" EM and the classical EM is the
form of the field. In classical EM the fields are ubiquitous, while in
SFT the field is in the form of the 'stream of photons, so concept not
unlike string theory emerge.
In brief there is much justification for the new SFT formulation.
Which leads us to 'photon chemistry'. Take a look at
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/Photon%20chemistry_UP_Mar_2004.pdf
You will see that photon chemistry is another layer of 'chemistry'
below atomic chemistry. IF we look at the hydrogen atom, the binding
energy becomes the exchange of photons between the proton and the
electron many times each cycle of the electron and proton (which rotate
together in order to preserve the balance of forces. What is most
interesting in this physics is that there must be an integral number of
exchanges each cycle. This is governed by Planck's quantum which turns
out to be the energy per cycle for the atom. (see
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/Two%20Analytic%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Mass%20of%20the%20Photon.pdf)
We find that Planck's number is a constant only for atoms. But it
appears in a similar but variable form across physics.( So black holes
are seen in SFT as 'collations of energy' and appear as an oscillating
series across physics; this gives a unifying principle, an alternating
series of forces of varying fields and particles at the various domains
seen cosmologically and microscopically and beyond.see
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/universe.htm).
When we come to molecules like H2O, we find that the internal binding
fields can 'leak' outside of the outershell electron of atoms. NOw
there does NOT need to be an integral number of photon exchanges per
cycle. IT WILL be integral in crystals, but not in biologicval
structures, so things become more complex and hence more dynamic inside
biological complexes.
I hope I'm making the point that there IS validation for a 'photon
chemistry' taht sits underneaths atomic chemistry. We find that just
like the hydrogen atom, we get another closely related mathematics to
solve for the photon. Hence instead of just having TWO sub-particles
as in the ordinary photon, we could have THREE sub-particles, as long
as we realise that the fields inside SFT as FRACTAL.
So there is a very rich vein of physics inside SFT. And this is WITHOUT
introducing how phonons eneter into teh physics.
3*photon + 3*phonon ===> 4*gluon
What we have on the left side of the equation is that 3 photons each
having 2 sub-photonic particle oriented say in the X-Y plane can
combine combine with 3 phonons each having 2 sub-photonic particle
oriented say in the Z-X
plane. They are moving towards each other,, head on, along the X and
-X axes. After the photon-phonon collision, given certain
prerequisites on temperature and density, they form 4 gluons each
having 3 sub-photonic particle oriented say in the X-Y-Z axes with no
nett velocity.
How can you justify your supposition that these gluons are formed in
this way?
Our work at BRI in neurobiology and acoustic therapy indicates that
photons and phonons are very closely related at a fundamental level.
Besides, there is evidence from various directions.
See http://www.unifiedphysics.com/NN2006_Abstract_Fleming.pdf
and http://www.unifiedphysics.com/NN2006_Abstract_Fleming2.pdf
Assuming you can justify it, how do you reconcile it with
the fact the gluons are never found in 4s?
I'm not quite sure why you are mentioning the 4s orbital here, but I
imagine it's what I said about X-Y-Z axes. What we have in fact is a
three-way coupling between what I call the electric, magnetic and
NUCLEAR fields. We find that we can modify MAxwell's equation by adding
another div and another curl equation in order to give us the correct
3D (three-dimensional) motions for the gluons and the quarks. (Earlier
I mentioned 1D for the incorrect present-day Coulomb and Biot-Savart
fields, and 2D for the correct "new" EM fields). Thus we modify the M-L
equations to give us our required 3D gluon-quark motions. We find we
can now formulate these modified equations to give us a solveable
eigenvalue system of differential equations; we solve for the THREE
spinors associated with the gluons AND the quarks, similar to solving
for the TWO spinors for the electron and the proton in the simple
two-point model of the electron and proton of the hydrogen atom. So
there are now SIX variable in the proton instead of FOUR inside the
simple two-point (Bohr-like) model of the hydrogen atom. Note that this
maths is consistent with obervational data from particle physics (UP,
DOWN, STRANGE, CHARM, BOTTOM, TOP
Hence we will find some form of symmetric orbital associated with each
gluon. What we find with the UP and DOWN nature of the quarks is that
there needs to be field formation that ventures OUTSIDE the type of
field structure seen in atoms (the outer shell electron does NOT
venture outwards). This is related to the presence of a nuclear halo
Depending on the collision angle, the gluons will have
a resulting vector of kinetic energy. Note that the internal structure
of the gluons permit the formation of quarks, and various other strong
nuclear particles, depending on the reacting particles, the plasma for
instance.
Notice that the gluons with their "trispinorial" motions allows quarks
to ALSO move in trispinorial motions.
Notice too in all this that the group theory of QED and QCD shines
through intact.
go tohttp://www.unifiedphysics.com/quarks.htmformore info. Theblack is blue. I call it the black and blue theory. Therefore, by the
presence of a "halo" is explained via self-field theory as well as how
the Maxwell-Lorentz equations can be modified to give a system of
equations to solve for the energy density required to sustain
gluon-quark motions.The explanation to which you refer is circular. I have a theory that
black and blue theory, black is blue.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: self-field theory
- From: Kerry . Thurber
- Re: self-field theory
- References:
- Re: self-field theory
- From: tony fleming
- Re: self-field theory
- From: tony fleming
- Re: self-field theory
- From: Kerry . Thurber
- Re: self-field theory
- Prev by Date: Re: self-field theory
- Next by Date: Re: self-field theory
- Previous by thread: Re: self-field theory
- Next by thread: Re: self-field theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
