Re: Zero Point Electron Orbit Stability?

From: EL (hemetis_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/22/04 

Date: 21 Nov 2004 23:49:33 -0800

John Sefton <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message news:<41a0de51@news.accesscomm.ca>...
> John Sefton wrote:
> >
> >
> > James Landle wrote:
> >
> >> But what Timothy Boyer had done, and what Hal then perfected, was to
> >> show that if you take into account the Zero Point Field, you don't
> >> have to rely on Bohr's dictum. You can show mathematically that
> >> electrons lose and gain energy constantly from the Zero Point Field
> >> in a dynamic equilibrium, balanced at exactly the right orbit.
> >> Electrons get their energy to keep going without slowing down because
> >> they are refuelling by tapping into these fluctuations of empty space.
> >> In other words, the Zero Point Field accounts for the stability of the
> >> hydrogen atom - and, by inference, the stability of all matter. Pull
> >> the plug on zero-point energy, Hal demonstrated, and all atomic
> >> structure would collapse."
> >
> > Except electrons don't tap the Zero point;
> > they cycle through the proton to re-charge.
> > It is the proton that taps the Zero point (or whatever).
> > John
> >
> But anyway, the sense is there.
> Otherwise atoms are perpetual motion.
> I, 4 1, like it.
> John

[EL]
I would like to make a statement here.
Any {{ABSOLUTELY}} closed system with moving components embedded must
be, by definition, a perpetual motion system.
Think about it first.
Then try to find any system that is ultimately {CLOSED}.
We may imagine an abstractly closed system for sake of analysis but
nature has no such "absolutely" closed systems.
Then think about this idea in its context.
A neutron may be considered as a closed "charge" system, but since it
has an externally interactive mass then it must be gravitationally
open.
An electron has mass and charge properties, which by definition imply
that an electron must interact gravitationally and electrostatically
with the rest of nature.

To say that an electron is a perpetual motion system then is out of
question.

Now let us examine the concept of energy and if it applies to an
electron in a classic orbit.
We first ask if an electron was a fixed geometry that orbits in a path
about a nucleus.
The answer is definitely NO.
Take into account the "Probability Space" that each electron, within a
finite energy level, may occupy.
The higher the energy level the more complex is the probability space.
We know that the molecular level of matter binding has a state that is
affected by the ambient energy level.
That dynamic medium of waves does not penetrate the atomic structure
unless a higher frequency wave is reached.
The photoelectric effect proved that atomic components shall only
begin to absorb waves that are adequate in wavelength.
IOW, the electron, if it was moving in an orbit, it would be affected
by a certain range of wave-frequencies.

In a departure from the classic idea of an atom, the modern aspect is
that the electron is the orbit and not a point in an orbit.
AT least this is my postulate that I am proposing. :-)
In my model, the electron is not moving around the nucleus and has no
"energy" requirements to keep moving, (which is not happening).
However, the electron-dynamic-orbit is still interacting with a
certain range of waves and it absorbs them and emits them dynamically.
This also means that there is no such problem that demands "taping"
into the ZP as mentioned above.

ZP boundaries are at constant dynamic interference serving a chaotic
background out of which all order emerges.

An electron is a wave and this is empirically demonstrated by applying
Electron Wave Holography to photograph magnetic fields inside magnets.

Now connect this information with the fact that high energy gamma rays
"bumping" into magnetic walls break down into electron-positron pair
avalanches.

Then think about a photon as a quantum and ask if it needs energy to
propagate through space or that IT IS energy propagating through
space.

Here I would like to introduce the classification of waves into
self-referencing topologies and externally referenced topologies.

An electron participating inside any atomic system is a standing wave
but once it is detached and begins to propagate we have two cases.
The first case the displacement of the electron with an intact
topology resembling a vortex and qualifying as a quantum.
The second case is when the electron is annihilated as a particle but
emerging as a component in a non standing wave by positron coupling.

Here we feel ready to accept the fact that the inner structure of an
electron qualifies as energy rather than matter demanding energy to
move.

We can blow air to displace a spinning top made of ice, where the
ice-top demands external energy for displacement.
Similarly, very strong wind can displace a tornado as a whole, but a
tornado is in itself wind in a spin.
If wind resembles energy in our analogy, then a standing wave of
energy demands a propagating wave of energy to be displaced as a
whole.
This does not negate the fact that a spinning energy is energy in
itself.

If we have accepted the fact that "light" or electromagnetic waves may
propagate indefinitely in spacetime then why do we demand a cause to
sustain the motion of a spinning wave?

We should not be concerned here about energy keeping energy in motion
but rather we should be concerned with the primordial cause of energy
motion.
This is to say, we need not search for "energy that moves energy" but
what makes the "mover that moves the being moved", move in the first
place.

Energy waves are temporal force-vector patterns that are carried away
constantly in all directions unless being clipped by others in a
forceful interaction.

It must be a dynamic background that carries away any local property
of the wave.
The speed "c" happens to be the speed that we observe as the
characteristic of EM wave motion in vacuum.

The final conclusion should be that Zero Point boundaries expand or
collapse at a radial speed "c" in all the infinite directions at all
the infinity of localities.
This should be a fair enough cause to keep the spinning spinning and
the propagating propagating unless otherwise noted.

Thus, no system is absolutely closed and there is no perpetual motion
systems, but we might wish to investigate the Zero Point concept in
deeper details.

:-)

EL

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Zero Point Electron Orbit Stability?
    ... be, by definition, a perpetual motion system. ... An electron has mass and charge properties, ... finite energy level, may occupy. ... An electron is a wave and this is empirically demonstrated by applying ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained
    ... You say that E=mc^2 violates law of conservation of energy, ... to emerge from this geometry, are said to be mini gyroscopes. ... electron was also a wave. ... Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Light
    ... While a traveling wave electro-magnetic wave does contain both an electric ... As Mr. Russel indicated light is only one form of EM energy. ... The wavelength is inversely proportional to the ... energy does not have to be driven by electron orbitals. ...
    (sci.engr.color)
  • Re: Wave as wave, particle as particle
    ... not change its radius sensitibley depending on its energy uptake, ... if the energy capacity of old orbital electron ... questioned is to have radius of electron ring possible to emit ... standing wave forming ...
    (sci.physics)
  • /zpf = (mc^2/e^2)^2(1 + (2/alpha)^2) for electron stability
    ... transverse EM waves have positive pressure? ... polarizations do have positive energy density hence negative pressure ... This gives the famous factor of 2 in Einstein's "gravity lens" ... physically the real on-mass-shell BARE electron sans its ...
    (sci.math)