Electricity

[bperet]

Horace wrote:

Although I wonder how can they detect uncharged electrons in vacuum, and how can the uncharged electron survive outside of matter without reacquiring the charge.

The uncharged electron, having a free dimension previously occupied by the charge, is carried by the progression of the natural reference system and thus behaves just like a photon--right down to the wave/particle duality. It would be carried at the speed of light until it collided with the detector, transforming into electric current similar to a photoelectric effect, directly entering the conduction band (the normal photoelectric effect is for the photon to kick a valence electron into the conduction band).

Since the uncharged electron and photon behave the same, neither can collide with each other as both are being carried at different absolute positions in the natural reference system, so a charge (a photon) cannot be imparted on the electron until the electron enters the "time" of matter and is captured.

[davelook]

Ok, for about a week now I have been reading all I can about something fascinating called the "random walk", which I'm sure you guys are familiar with.

Anyway, as I've been reading QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, it's keeps nagging me that his "path integrals" are really random walks in time. I've also been reading about how all the different forms of Quantum Physics (Matrix Mechanics, Schroedinger Wave Eq, Dirac Eq, and the latest, Feynman's "Path Integrals", are all really different forms of Diffusion equations, which is how Einstein proved in 1905 that atoms really exist (Physicists in 1905 thought matter was continuous) by explaining Brownian Motion and collisions between atoms and molecules.

See link for excellent discussion...

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/E ... index.html

So I've had this thought in my mind for awhile that what we interpret as "straight line" motion of light is just the result of averaging all possible random walks. In fact, Feynman talks about how c is really an average when you examine it closely.

I've also been thinking that if space and time are reciprocal, maybe they are reciprocal within a SINGLE unit of motion. If motion ALWAYS exists, could it be that a point in space is the endpoint of a harmonic oscillation, and that as the motion gets going it "spreads" the spatial location out to infinity, which is when it becomes precisely point-located in time? When the oscillation becomes a space-point, it's reappeared at an entirely NEW random point one unit away. Think of a pendulum, with a definite space-point correspnding to the Potential energy portion, and the all-Kinetic portion being a definite time-point. The 2 are mutually exclusive, (one is scalar while the other is vector), but the each take a turn during every unit of motion.

Just now I read this...

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html


Two noteworthy successes of SED are its derivation of the Planck blackbody function without assuming quantization and its suggestion that the Bohr orbit of hydrogen could arise without a quantum law. In the latter case, the ground state electron is assumed to emit Larmor radiation which causes it to spiral inward, but this does not lead to collapse of the orbit because the electron also absorbs zero-point energy. The calculation of the absorption was done by Boyer and later by Puthoff by treating the electron as undergoing harmonic oscillation rather than true motion in a Coulomb potential. This is a weakness in the analysis but nonetheless it is striking that the Larmor emission and harmonic-oscillator-type absorption prove to be in balance exactly at the Bohr radius. The fact that the orbital angular momentum is zero in the quantum ground state is mirrored in the SED orbiting-electron interpretation by random changes in the orbital plane (due to the zero-point fluctuations) yielding a time averaged zero net angular momentum.

Recent simulations by Cole have successfully modeled the electron motion in the Coulomb potential of a hydrogen atom and have thereby replicated the electron probability density predicted by the Schroedinger wave function. In the SED case, the electron in a Coulomb field is jostled by its emission and absorption to a range of radial distances which reproduce the Schroedinger probability. This is an intriguing extension of the earlier result, but problems still remain such as the need to cut off the particle-field interactions to avoid autoionization, i.e. a single very high frequency, hence very energetic, zero-point fluctuation could free the electron.

The representation of the zero-point field as an ensemble of plane waves each with an energy of precisely 1/2 hf in all possible directions and random phases was modified in 1995 by Ibison and Haisch. They added a parameter having a random distribution of energies with 1/2 hf as the mean, thereby yielding a closer formal correspondence with the quantum behaviour.

ZITTERBEWEGUNG

Schroedinger was apparently the first to note that solving the Dirac equation for the motion of the electron resulted in a necessary component that could be interpreted as random, speed-of-light fluctuations of a point-like particle. He dubbed this motion ''zitterbewegung'' (German for ''jitter motion''). In SED theory, the phenomenon of zitterbewegung is caused by the electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations.

Several things are interesting about zitterbewegung. First, since the fluctuations occur at the speed of light, then at this level the electron would have to be massless, mass arising at some higher level of motion. Secondly, the fluctuations smear out the average position over a volume the Compton radius in size, which suggests a physical interpretation of the wave function and the associated probability density. (Scattering experiments indicate that the electron is far smaller than its Compton size, indeed point-like for all we know.) Thirdly, simulations that have recently been done show that if such a massless, fluctuating point particle is accelerated in an electric field, the zitterbewegung acquires a helical motion suggestive of spin. The possible association of zitterbewegung with spin has been made by a number of authors over the years such as Barut and Zanghi, Hestenes, Huang, Weisskopf, etc.

Zitterbewegung thus suggests possibly deep connections between zero-point energy and the mass-energy relationship of matter and with the quantum properties of particles.

[davelook]

This might be interesting. I was reading about the Rydberg Constant, and how expressing things in 1/wavelength (X2 for unit space) made it easier to deduce the spectral formula. Realizing inverse space has the dim of power, I wondered if my idea of forces being actually the resultant of random 3D motion is a type force (t/s^2). In electrical terms, P=I*E (or in mechanical, it's P=F*v). Of course, Volts and Force are both t/s^2. Since we know that v (or I) is "c", what would the pure dimensionless ratio indicate the force as? I thought it could be be some number distantly related to sqrt3, since we are talking about 3D scalar motion (something like the unit cube, but more just the probabilities of completely random (scalar?) motion, where 3 randomly oriented of units of motion AVERAGE OUT as a velocity of sqrt3(space)/3(time), or 3/3^2, or simply s/t^2. The SPEED is 1 to 1, but the VELOCITY is reduced when doing a random walk.

Low and behold, my heart actually skipped a beat, because (Rinf*2)/c= .073208856, and (sqrt3)-1 = 0.732050808

0.732050808 / .073208856 = 1.0000515821E-01

I think the "minus 1" has to do with the fact that the "initial unit" has equal probability of "outward or inward", and so you can't rightly count it. The subsequent "jumps" also have the same probability, but because they are built off existing motion, they become essentially 2 more right turns, covering all 3 dimensions (on average).

I have no idea why it's reduced by a factor of .1, tho.

This might be what Bundy is looking for with his focus on the unit cube.

Because of this, I discovered this little gem...

Take the sqrt of the Josephson constant (4.8359789100E+14 s^2/t^2), = 2.1990859260E+07, and compare it to the reciprocal of unit space, 2.1947463137E+07

2.1990859260E+07 / 2.1947463137E+07 = 1.00197727

That means sqrt(2e/h) ~ Rinf*2

[bperet]

davelook wrote:

I wondered if my idea of forces being actually the resultant of random 3D motion is a type force (t/s^2).

Per Larson, (Neglected Facts of Science, p. 13), "force" is a property of motion, not anything independent, so technically it would be a distributed motion, not a random one (difference being that a distributed motion has equal probabilities in all orientations, whereas random does not).

davelook wrote:

In electrical terms, P=I*E (or in mechanical, it's P=F*v). Of course, Volts and Force are both t/s^2. Since we know that v (or I) is "c", what would the pure dimensionless ratio indicate the force as? I thought it could be be some number distantly related to sqrt3, since we are talking about 3D scalar motion (something like the unit cube

If you were talking about 3D scalar motion, the factor would be the cube root, not the square root of 3, since the scalar dimensions are independent of each other and have no geometry ("magnitudes" cannot have orientation; "unit cubes" are a spatial coordinate concept, not a scalar one).

Based on the dimensions of your equations, it is more likely that you are dealing with 1D scalar motion that is distributed into 3 coordinate dimensions (the other 2 scalar dimensions being unity). This fits with the electrical applications, as electrons have motion in only 1 scalar dimension.

davelook wrote:

but more just the probabilities of completely random (scalar?) motion, where 3 randomly oriented of units of motion AVERAGE OUT as a velocity of sqrt3(space)/3(time), or 3/3^2, or simply s/t^2. The SPEED is 1 to 1, but the VELOCITY is reduced when doing a random walk.

I assume you understand that "power" (1/s) is just the counterspatial measure of "space" (s/1). This has certain implications:

1. Power is non-local.
2. Speed and velocity are local measurements, and hence inapplicable in counterspace (space to time measure).
3. Energy and force are non-local measurements, applicable to counterspace (time to space measure).
4. Counterspace is polar (second power relations, as viewed from space, hence sqrt relationships often result).

davelook wrote:

Low and behold, my heart actually skipped a beat, because (Rinf*2)/c= .073208856, and (sqrt3)-1 = 0.732050808

0.732050808 / .073208856 = 1.0000515821E-01

So your equation is:

(Rinf * 2) / c = (sqrt(3) - 1) / 10

Which, IMHO, is a bit too precise to be ignored.

davelook wrote:

I think the "minus 1" has to do with the fact that the "initial unit" has equal probability of "outward or inward", and so you can't rightly count it.

In my opinion...

The "minus 1" is the conversion from "motion" to "displacement," since all our scientific measurements are made based on displacements, not actual speeds or energy. The 0-0-(1) of the electron is a displacement, the actual speed of the electron being 1/1-1/1-2/1.

For the "sqrt(3)"... counterspace, as viewed from space, is scale variant, in other words, trying to measure it like trying to measure something in a hall of mirrors, because the measurement is a summation of an infinite series of reducing scales--each reflection is composed of smaller reflections. This results in counterspatial measurements returning irrational numbers, usually some type of series expansion. The sqrt(3) is such a number:

sqrt(3) = 1 + 2/(2+2/(2+2/(2+...)))

(You might find Archimedes` constant PI and the Square Root of 3 to be somewhat interesting).

From the expansion, you can see that sqrt(3) is a scale variant sequence, which starts with unity (progression) + a reflected displacement s=(2/(2+s))... In an approximation, it could be written 1 + 2/s (and we know that 2/s is the wavelength of space--wavelength being a "discrete unit" of counterspace, per the "Forces and Force Fields" discussion).

davelook wrote:

I have no idea why it's reduced by a factor of .1, tho.

I am puzzled by this, also. Based on the position in the equation, and the fact that it is unitless, it is acting like a probability distribution, which I would have expected to be 8 (2³), not 10. Don't know where the extra 2 degrees of freedom could come from, but I will investigate.

In summary, the implication is that the Rydberg constant is actually a measurement of the power of the progression of the natural reference system. Being that Planck's constant is the momentum of the progression, what I think we are starting to see is that all the "natural constants" are just ways to view the effects of the progression on the dimensions of extension space.

[/]

[davelook]

Even if you knew nothing about Planck's constant, but only knew Larson Time and Larson Space, you can derive the principal energy levels of atoms (with only 1 electron left).

This page gives typical levels for H and He http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/proj/advance ... levels.asp

The following formula works for every level listed...

(((Z*Snat)^2)/(n*Tnat))/n

e.g. for Hydrogen Z=1, n=3:

((1*4.556335253E-08)^2 / (3*1.519829846E-16)) /3 = 1.51 eV

for Helium Z=2, n=5:

((2*4.556335253E-08)^2 / (5*1.519829846E-16)) /5 = 2.185 eV

It works for lithium, too.

[davelook]

OK, the simplified formula is:

(Z*Snat)^2 / ( n* sqrt-Tnat )^2 = eV (n1 = 13.6 for Hydrogen)

Which sort of proves this idea I've had for awhile that the REAL unit of time is the sqrt of T_nat.

This is all based on random (scalar) walk statistics.

Volts=t/s^2 or eV is really photon momentum (SqrtT)^2/Snat^2 = t^2/s^2.

Normally the sqrt of T is hidden from view.

I think having to square time might have something to do with "spin".

This also explains why the shortest measured time is in the E-24 range. 1.232813792E-008^3 = 1.873667195E-024 sec, which is a number that pops up in the amazing Dirac Equation paper http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf & part 2... http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf

[bperet]

davelook wrote:

The following formula works for every level listed...

(((Z*Snat)^2)/(n*Tnat))/n

I do believe you've got something. I ran a quick PHP for a few elements:

Code: Select all

Which results in:

Code: Select all

 Z n Energy........

1 1 13.65954949

1 2 3.41488737

1 3 1.51772772

1 4 0.85372184

1 5 0.54638198

2 1 54.63819797

2 2 13.65954949

2 3 6.07091089

2 4 3.41488737

2 5 2.18552792

3 1 122.93594543

3 2 30.73398636

3 3 13.65954949

3 4 7.68349659

3 5 4.91743782

4 1 218.55279187

4 2 54.63819797

4 3 24.28364354

4 4 13.65954949

4 5 8.74211167

5 1 341.48873730

5 2 85.37218432

5 3 37.94319303

5 4 21.34304608

5 5 13.65954949

The only problem area I have found so far is that it only works for singly-ionized atoms (a single electron), so it works for Hydrogen, Helium (singly ionized) and Lithium.

[bperet]

davelook wrote:

Which sort of proves this idea I've had for awhile that the REAL unit of time is the sqrt of T_nat.

"Real" as in the sense of "Observed"? Recall that in the time region, "s" is replaced by 1/t, making motion within the time region: s/t = (1/t)/t = 1/t². To bring that effect across the unit boundary, it would make sense that to get "t" from "t²", one would have to take the square root.

What I find particularly interesting is that your equation infers that the "electric motion" being measured is NOT part of atomic rotation, but distinct from it, since if it were part of the atomic rotation the interaction would be 't', not sqr(t). That would mean that there ARE "orbital" electrons in the atomic system being measured by quantum numbers (I say "orbital" but it is more accurate to say "captured" electrons).

davelook wrote:

Volts=t/s^2 or eV is really photon momentum (SqrtT)^2/Snat^2 = t^2/s^2.

Excellent observation! Makes perfect sense in RS2, since voltage is a measurement of the charged electron, and the "charge" on the electron is a PHOTON.

Great work, Dave!

[davelook]

bperet wrote:

If Larson is correct, I think we will find that EVERYTHING exhibits quantum behavior if you look hard enough... voltage, current, and even resistance because they are all composed of discrete units of motion. It is good to have supporting evidence.

Here's another example, this time quantizing heat flow...

http://www.kschwabresearch.com/files/pu ... e-2006.pdf

By the way, Plank's constant (in eV) is just the Hartree energy 27.211 eV (or 2 X Rydberg energy), multiplied by Larson time.

Have you guys seen this video of frictionless motion thru space? Check out toward the end, where they show the He superfluid fountain...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI

[RMohan]

Folks on the list might really be provoked

and excited to read The Serial Universe

by J.W. Dunne.

Perfectly balanced on the triple edge of

science, philosophy, and experience, it

arrives at some of the same conclusions

as Larson, and comes up with a fascinating

argument for why the 'wave/particle' duality

is in our measurements and not in reality

outside of our measurements.

I wish I knew if Larson and Dunne had heard

of each other...there are similarities....