41

New Theories / On 'Kinetic Energy' and 'Electrostatics'.

« on: 25/09/2016 21:01:22 »

Electrostatics is traditionally defined as the study of the behaviour of ‘charged particles’ that have been separated from each other. As the neutron and the neutrino do not have charge, it is primarily the study of electron and proton separation, although positrons and anti-protons can also figure.

The basic concept behind electrostatics is that oppositely charged particles, function together under the influence of an electrostatic field, being attracted or repelled according to an interaction between like with like charges and like with unlike charges.

So what role does kinetic energy have in the study of static electricity?
 
The link arises during the process of removing an electron from its host atom. It is a process which imparts kinetic energy to the extracted electrons in order to remove them from their atomic orbit around the nucleus.

The use of friction between two dissimilar materials, referred to as the ‘triboelectric effect’, provides an example of this input of kinetic energy, but once extracted, the electron does not show itself as having kinetic energy that is associated with the movement of the electron through space, but through an increase in the electron’s ‘static vibrational energy’.

In electrostatic experiments conducted in the lab, the electrons, once freed from their atom, can be physically transferred and stored upon a ‘non-conducting’ surface or alternatively, upon an insulated ‘conducting’ surface. The depositing of the electrons onto this storage medium brings the energised vibrating electrons into close contact with each other, but it is their individual vibrations, rather than their charge, which initially keeps them apart.

But as the numbers of electrons continue to stack up on the finite surface area of the storage medium, they begin to cramp each other’s space. The electrons cope with this by synchronising their vibrations to make the best use of the horizontal space available to them and storing newly arrived electrons on top of each other, when the surface area is fully utilised.
 
The deeper and denser that the layers of electrons become, the greater is their synchronised vibrational energy, until a critical energy level is reached, at which the 'vibrations' of the energised electrons are able to interact with the electrons of the atoms in the surrounding non-conducting medium.

This vibrational contact affects the electron pairings located in each atom’s outer orbit, causing the electron pair to be split apart and dispatching one of the electron pair into a higher energy state. Because both electrons remain as part of the atom, the atom is not ionised, but the division creates a free electron in the atom’s new outer orbit and this starts the temporary conversion of the non-conducting medium into a conducting one.

Repetitive quantum strikes of kinetic energy passing from the stored electrons into the non-conducting medium continues to separate paired electrons, with the process moving from molecule to molecule away from the source, albeit in the manner of a ‘random walk’.

Each ‘pair splitting’ event absorbs an input of vibrational energy from the electron store. But the distance that it travels through the non-conducting medium can fizzle out, if the driving force from the transmitted electron vibrations is depleted or siphoned off in another direction. This same cessation of ‘pair splitting’, also happens when the path of a ‘pair splitting’ process is impeded by an object, such as an earthed terminal or an object upon the earth itself and this causes the path to deliver its remaining vibrational energy onto that blocking object.
 
However, the ending of a 'pair splitting path' initiates a reversal of the process, whereby the energised outer electron of each ‘split pair’ is now able to fall back into its original orbital level, emitting a flash of visible light. This enables the split pair to re-join again and returns the medium back into its non-conducting state.
 
The traditional concept of the electron as having an associated ‘charge’ and being mediated by an ‘electrostatic field’, is not a requirement of this electrostatic ‘lightning strike’ phenomenon.
 
The concept of ‘static vibrational energy’ is also relevant in the field of electrodynamics, where traditionally the creation of an electric current in a conducting circuit is viewed as the result of the physical movement of charged electrons along a conducting wire under the influence of an electrostatic field.

The transport of an electric current around a conducting circuit by the means of ‘vibrating electrons’, is driven by the input of quantum units of kinetic energy, that are vibrated into the circuit by a generating source, whether it is a battery, a dynamo, mechanical friction or the sun’s radiant energy.

Each quantum input of energy is transmitted around the circuit using the conducting 'free electrons' as its vehicle. These free electrons are located in the outer orbit of every atom of the conducting circuit and together they provide a direct conduit through the lattice structure of the conducting wire.

Once the vibration from the input kinetic energy has been transmitted from one electron to the next in a sequential manner, the electrons in the circuit each return to their original state, enabling them to transmit the next quantum unit of vibrational kinetic energy. The voltage at any point upon the conducting circuit, is just a measurement of the kinetic energy that is being transported past that point.

These two phenomena from the fields of electrostatics and electrodynamics, which are in essence the same process of transmitting kinetic energy through a medium, are not underpinned by the existence of a ‘universal electric force field’ that mediates the interaction between charged particles, but are explained more simply by the ‘generation’, ‘storage’ and ‘transfer’ of kinetic energy.

42

New Theories / Re: On ‘Kinetic Energy’ and ‘Nuclear Vibration’.

« on: 21/09/2016 15:42:34 »

RTC reply to Post by: alancalverd
« on: 05/09/2016 14:57:53 »

"There's quite a bit of nonsense in the OP. To begin with, v is a vector and v^2 is not a velocity or even a speed but the square of the modulus of a vector, i.e. a scalar which can take any value you like without offending the fudamental principles of relativity. If you start with a massive particle and accelerate it towards v = c, its mass increases, as confirmed by experiment, according to the relativistic equations."

I hoped it would be recognised, that I wrote this paragraph with my tongue in my cheek! Obviously a mistake.

"And beware of confusing atoms, molecules and nuclei. Nuclear collision is extremely unlikely as nuclei are very, very small compared with the atoms they inhabit, and carry a lot of charge. If it were not so, we could have all the fusion energy we need by simply bashing two bits of coal together!"

Nuclei vibration within a molecule is not enough to cause the two nuclei to fuse. The best physical analogy I can offer is a tuning fork, where the prongs vibrate synchronously, but are kept well apart.

"If you want a conundrum, consider that a photon has kinetic energy but no mass. However Planck and Einstein sorted all that out about 100 years ago, so I wouldn't advise anyone to waste too much time contemplating it - the answer is in the book and the phenomenon of pair production confirms their predictions (with a very significant yield) every day."

I tend to take the view that the knowledge available to Einstein and Plank a 100 years ago, hardly matches that which we have today. And new knowledge can lead to new ways of viewing known physical phenomenon, such as pair production, although I have none to offer.

43

New Theories / On ‘Kinetic Energy’ and ‘Nuclear Vibration’.

« on: 30/08/2016 08:33:37 »

The concept of kinetic energy (KE) is based upon the movement of matter, whether it is a particle or a bullet. But as Lagrange and Einstein pointed out, velocity is relative. So if you are moving at the same speed and direction as the bullet, then you can pick it out of the air, check the make and put it back in the air, allowing it to continue on its way. To you, it hasn’t got any kinetic energy and in the vastness of space, it would be as if you were both in ‘suspended animation’ or even that ‘time was standing still’. But you aren’t and it hasn’t, for if you put yourself in front of the bullet and slow down, then time would have ticked on and the kinetic energy of the bullet would be immediately evident to you.

We know that kinetic energy isn’t just 'stored energy' for it also has direction, so the question that needs to be answered is: “Exactly how is kinetic energy held within the atomic structure of a body of matter, in a manner that gives it both a magnitude and direction?” If you think you know the answer to this question, then you don’t need to read on, unless, of course, you are interested enough in the subject of kinetic energy, to find out what the ‘competitive concept’ being proposed here is.

Turning to the mathematics for a moment, kinetic energy is defined as the mass of a particle or body of matter, multiplied by a ‘velocity term’, which equates to half of the velocity raised to the power of two, ½v². Out of this comes the odd fact, that if the velocity of the particle is equal to or greater than 517,532 mph, then this ‘½v² velocity term’ being applied to the ‘mass’ of the particle, equates to a velocity that is greater than the ‘speed of light’. As nothing is thought to move faster than ‘light speed’, then kinetic energy takes on an unreal quality. So how do you interpret this into the reality of the atomic world?
 
To progress this question, consider two hydrogen atoms travelling at a velocity, v, in opposite directions, that collide ‘head on’ forming a ‘stationary hydrogen molecule’ with KE=mv².  If the molecule is stationary, then exactly what has happened to the kinetic energy of the two colliding hydrogen atoms? As energy can be neither created nor destroyed, the kinetic energy must survive. If it is to remain in the form of movement and there only seems to be two possibilities. Either the kinetic energy is converted into ‘molecular spin’ rotating at the velocity ‘v’, around an axis set at right angles to the original direction of travel of the two hydrogen atoms or it appears as an ‘internal vibration’ between the two hydrogen atoms that created the hydrogen molecule.

If it doesn’t survive as movement, then there is another possibility and this rests upon the idea that energy can be transformed into mass, as Einstein’s iconic formula E=mc² implies.  However, any increase in the masses of the two protons and electrons that make up the hydrogen molecule, would have to be transformed into their more massive ‘sibling particles’, notably, the ‘neutron’ and the ‘electron muon’ respectively. But hydrogen molecules comprised of a pair of neutron nuclei with two electron muons in orbit around them, have yet to be observed.

So kinetic energy transforming directly into mass is a low probability outcome. Further, as ‘hydrogen molecules’ have not been observed to exist in a ‘spin state’, then the option of kinetic energy re-appearing as internal vibration within a molecule, becomes the more realistic outcome. So exactly how does this occur?

As the two hydrogen atoms collide, their nuclear structure is forced together and distorted. The two nuclei of the atoms are the first to be affected, as the kinetic energy of the hydrogen atom is mainly associated with their mass and the collision causes them to be forced together. This movement of the nuclei also affects the electrons and if the two hydrogen atoms are viewed as having a spherical shape created by their electron orbits, then the collision forces their circular orbits into a more elliptical shape, with the minor axis lined up along the original direction of movement of the two atoms.

This shift of atomic nuclei towards each other, initiates an electrostatic repulsion between them, which repels them apart again in the reverse direction. But this equal and opposite reversal between the two nuclei, causes them to overshoot beyond their centralised locations within their electron orbits. This results in their electron orbits changing shape again, moving through the circular orbit and into an elliptical shape again, but this time with the major axes lined up along their original direction of movement.

This 'nuclei overshoot', however, initiates a reversal of their movement apart, as the combined electrostatic forces of their two elliptically orbiting electrons, act in concert draw them back towards each other again, but once more, the kinetic energy of the nuclei cause them to overshoot towards each other.

As there are no internal forces at work that will dampen down the movement of nuclei and electrons within an atom, this alternating process repeats itself perpetually, creating a ‘repetitive nuclear vibration’ between the two hydrogen atoms within the hydrogen molecule. This internal molecular vibration of the nuclei and electrons along the collision path of the two hydrogen atoms is the means by which the kinetic energy, apparently lost by the two colliding hydrogen atoms, is transferred both in magnitude and direction, into the stationary hydrogen molecule.
 
In the more general case, in which two hydrogen atoms with different velocities, collide at an angle rather than head on, then the resulting ‘nuclear vibration’ still occurs, but with a greater or smaller magnitude, dependent upon the velocities of the two colliding atoms. The hydrogen molecule that is created, emerges from the collision with a residual velocity, travelling in a direction that is determined by the original angle of contact between the two hydrogen atoms.

If we consider the kinetic energy of molecules within a liquid, rather than hydrogen gas, then the collisions between the molecules results in the same process of nuclear vibration, transferring kinetic energy between the liquid molecules. It’s a process that is called, ‘Brownian motion’ after its discoverer.

But perhaps the most interesting impact of the transfer of kinetic energy into nuclear vibration is within a solid, such as the bullet referred to in the opening paragraph. For as the molecular vibration surges backwards and forwards across the bullet in its direction of travel, its impact upon an object placed in its path is like a ‘jackhammer’. So if you are out in space travelling alongside that bullet, bear this in mind!

44

New Theories / Re: On Galaxies and Gravity.

« on: 20/08/2016 14:31:31 »

Posted by: jeffreyH
« on: 03/08/2016 18:47:21 » Quote (selected)

"I have only read about halfway through your post but need to point something out. Planetary orbital velocity is not as simple as you stated. If we take an arbitrary circular orbit with velocity v and reduce v then gravitational acceleration would change the orbit from circular to elliptical. Since closer orbits require an increase in speed. This will happen due to the acceleration. So you wouldn't necessarily have a planet spiral into the central star. If we increase v by some arbitrary speed we would need this increase to match the escape velocity otherwise we again end up with an elliptical orbit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RTCPhysics reply

Rockets launched from the earth's surface where our gravity is at a maximum, need to reach an 'escape velocity' in order to put satellites into orbit within the 'earth's gravitational field'.

Every planet in the solar system planets already moves at its 'solar escape velocity', as they orbit within the sun's gravitational field. Slow a planet down and the sun's gravitational pull will overwhelm the planet's reduced centrifugal force pulling it inwards in a spiralling motion, into ever increasing levels of gravitational pull from the sun, forcing it into a head on collision with the sun.

Speed the planet up and the planet's increased centrifugal force will overwhelm the sun's gravitational pull and cause it to spiral outwards into lower levels of the sun's gravitational field, eventually causing it to leave the solar system altogether, presuming it misses all the other orbiting planets on its way out.

The shape of an orbit, whether elliptical or circular is only relevant to Vera Rubin’s measurement of a star’s ‘average orbital velocity’, in so far as it affects the distance the star travels before returning to its start position within the galaxy. For Vera Rubin and her team to measure the 'average orbital velocity' of a star within the Andromeda galaxy, they only needed to measure the time taken for each star to return to its same relative position as seen from earth and then make an estimate of the distance it had travelled around the circumference of its orbit within the galaxy.

This is where there is room for experimental error, as the distance travelled is dependent upon the shape assumed for the orbit of the star. For a circular orbit the estimated perimeter distance is based upon the distance of the star from the centre of the galaxy and for an elliptical orbit, it is based upon the lengths of the major and minor axes. The ‘average orbital velocity’ of the star, which she plotted upon her graph, is measured by dividing the distance the star is estimated to have travelled around the perimeter of its orbit, by the measured time taken to traverse this orbit.

Her results showed that within experimental error, each star travelled around its orbit at the same ‘average velocity’ or as she expressed it, the same ‘constant velocity’.

45

New Theories / On Galaxies and Gravity.

« on: 03/08/2016 18:14:37 »

Observations of the Andromeda galaxy in 1975 by Vera Rubin led to the unexpected finding that, within experimental error, the stars within the spiral galaxy all orbited around its central point at the same ‘constant velocity’, what ever their location was in the galaxy. The observation was totally at odds with observations of our own planetary system, where planets orbit around the Sun at different velocities, dependent upon their distance from the Sun.

The ‘orbital velocity’ of a planet in our solar system is reliant upon the balancing of two opposing forces. The first is the gravitational force of attraction, defined either by Newton or Einstein, which exists between a planet and the Sun and the second is the ‘kinetic energy’ of the planet relative to the Sun, whose magnitude enables it to counteract the gravitational force between the two bodies of matter. This velocity of the planet is called its ‘orbital escape velocity’, for if it is slowed down, the planet will spiral into the sun and if it is increased, it will propel itself out of the solar system. The fact that the planets have ‘kinetic energy’ raises the question of ‘how did they amass it in the first place’. In its own way, ‘kinetic energy’ is as big a mystery to explain as gravity.
 
This simple model of our solar system defines the Sun’s gravitational field as being the dominant force, with its strength being inversely proportional to the square of the distance from its surface, a factor that becomes more important when we move on to tackle galaxies. Those planets, like Mercury and Earth, being nearer to the Sun, are required to orbit with a faster velocity than those further from the Sun. The gravitational attractions between the orbiting planets are relegated to a marginal role, being confined to creating small perturbations in the orbits of other planets. And this is what we observe.

But a galaxy is a completely different animal from our planetary solar system, being comprised of around a billion stars, generally arranged in either an elliptical or spiral structure. To progress to an explanation of Vera Rubin’s finding, we need to visualise the galaxy’s beginnings from a massive cloud of hydrogen gas. Any ‘gas cloud’ located in the vastness of space has no boundaries to contain it and over time the kinetic energy incorporated within each hydrogen atom will enable it to diffuse towards a state of having an even density throughout. This is an assumption, but it seems to be a reasonable one.

The next step in the formation of a galaxy is the joining of hydrogen elements into molecules and this happens throughout the hydrogen gas cloud. The formation of molecules enables gravity to kick in and it overcomes the inherent kinetic energy of a hydrogen molecule and triggers the process of forming a star. This process does not start just in one place within the gas cloud, but at locations all over its surface area. Each star attracts the hydrogen molecules around itself, growing in size as it does. The boundary to its growth is the availability of more hydrogen molecules, but as each star is creating a vacuum around itself at the same rate, then each star becomes limited in its growth to reach a set size.

This is where the statistical ‘law of large numbers’ plays a part, for if a process is repeated many times, in this case billions of stars forming in the same environment, each star will grow to a common size, distributed as a ‘normal curve’ around a mean value. The fully formed stars are evenly spread throughout the expanse of space that was originally occupied by the ‘gas cloud’. This is the ‘young galaxy’, with no ‘black holes’ yet in existence.

Unlike our solar system, the magnitude of the gravitational field is exactly the same over the whole galaxy. Each star attracts it neighbours with equally force creating an equilibrium of forces all around itself. The reduction of the gravitational force proportionately with the ‘square of the distance’, means that individual stars are primarily affected by their immediate neighbours and largely unaffected by those stars that are light years further away.  This makes the whole galaxy a stable structure, but still flexible to the movement of stars within it. If it wasn’t flexible at all, then the whole galaxy structure would rotate like a spinning plate, with the outer stars circling at the fastest speed and the centre star just rotating slowly upon its axis at a central position in space. The complete opposite of our solar system.

But gravity plays only a limited role in the rotational velocity of the stars within the galaxy. This is the preserve of their ‘kinetic energy’. The kinetic energy of each and every star comes from the original kinetic energy inherent in the hydrogen atoms that formed the original gas cloud. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so the kinetic energy of the hydrogen atoms is transferred to the hydrogen molecules and accumulated by each star as it grows to its mature size.

As each and every star follows the same formation process and grows to have a similar mass, so they have all incorporated the same amount of ‘kinetic energy’ and as a consequence move with the ‘same velocity’. But they are not free to travel in any direction, as they are bound together by the gravitational attraction of their neighbouring stars. This causes them to move in a circular pathway around the galaxy’s central point, but they all move with the exactly the same velocity.

There is an underlying assumption here that the magnitude of the kinetic energy of a star counteracts the gravitational force between a star and its neighbours. This is its ‘orbital escape velocity’, for like the planets orbiting the sun, if its velocity is too fast or to slow, the star would propel itself out of the galaxy or spiral in to collide with neighbouring stars. The result would be either a scattering of the stars throughout space or the creation of one star built from a billion others!

Using the analogy of runners on an athletics track, all running at the same speed but in different lanes, the stars in the outermost layer of the galaxy take longer to travel around the outer circumference of the galaxy, whereas the stars in the inner layers take less time and so there is a constant process of overtaking by the inner stars over the outer stars. The closer the stars are to one another, the less obvious this overtaking process is, but it takes place from the outside layer through to the centre of the galaxy with stars changing locations and moving on from the gravitational influence of one set of stars to that of the next set of stars, driven by their kinetic energy.

Although this provides an explanation for Vera Rubin’s observations that all stars within the Andromeda galaxy orbit with a constant velocity, it takes no account of the galactic ageing process, whereby stars become ‘red giants’ and subsequently collapse into ‘black holes’. As Andromeda is not a young galaxy, it is reasonable to assume that black holes have minimal effect upon the gravitational field of the galaxy. This can be seen to make sense, if a black hole is created from just one star, as the constituent matter of that star can only create the same gravitational force as its younger entity, less even, if some of its matter is flung out of the confines of the galaxy during its ‘super novae’ explosion. But ‘black holes’ are rogue entities within a galaxy and their enhanced kinetic energy from a super novae explosion can set them ploughing random paths through the galaxy’s stars, but not enough to upset the gravitational status quo.

46

New Theories / On Changing our Perception of a ‘Black Hole’.

« on: 20/06/2016 16:08:48 »

The nature of ‘black holes’ is slowly being revealed, as improved technology allows us to take a closer look at them. The formation of 'black holes' is thought to arise from the collapse of ageing 'red giant' stars, but the ongoing creation of multiple black holes within a galaxy of a billion stars can lead their merger, forming 'supermassive' black holes. One 'supermassive' black hole can act as a 'gravitational hub' around which all the stars in its galaxy orbit. But the question posed here is "Are they really ‘black holes’?"
 
1. A ‘black hole’ could in reality be a ‘black sphere’, which, when viewed from any angle at a distance, would appear as a ‘black hole’.

2. Matter that accumulates on the scale of a 'black hole' would always form into a sphere, shaped by its own gravitational forces.   

3. The ‘black sphere’ is built by amassing protons and neutrons into a single clump, resulting in an ‘atomic nucleus’ of epic proportions.

4. The denseness of this proton-neutron based ‘black sphere’, explains the massive strength of its gravitational field for an object of relatively small size.

5. Just like any star, the ‘black sphere’ will also have an intense magnetic field, emanating from the magnetic property of the protons and neutrons that make up its existence and this plays a role in the ejection of electrons in plasma jets or the creation of bursts of high energy radiant energy.
 
6. Black holes accumulate stars in their entirety, but stars are largely comprised of helium and hydrogen atoms and become stretched out into plasma streams orbiting around the 'black sphere'. The heavier hydrogen and helium nuclei are separated out from the lighter electrons by a 'gravitational stripping' process, which overcomes the electromagnetic attraction between nuclei and electrons. The protons of the nuclei and the electrons also have opposite charges, which causes them to be deflected in opposite directions when they enter the magnetic field of the 'black sphere' and this increases the separation process of electron from nuclei. But the magnetic deflection of the heavier nuclei is not strong enough to overcome the gravitational attraction of the 'black sphere and so they continue to spiral into the surface of the ’black sphere’, but the lighter electrons, being subjected to a much weaker gravitational attraction, are deflected off into space. 

7. As part of this process of gravitational separation of electrons from their nuclei, the electrons undergo acceleration by the magnetic field of the 'black sphere', which creates visible light emissions from within the orbiting clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. The electrons exiting from the 'black sphere's' gravitational influence as plasma jets, continue with varying intensity until all of the star is consumed. Alternatively, in certain unspecified situations, the electrons can also undergo transformation into radiant energy, generating x-ray flares or gamma ray bursts.

8. Denuding the ‘black sphere’ of any electron content is the explanation of why a ‘black sphere’ is unable to emit light of any frequency.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what is the outcome arising from this change of perception from a ‘black hole’ into a 'black sphere’?

1. The ‘black sphere’ is a three dimensional entity that we can relate to and is no longer a ‘black hole’ in the structure of space, tunnelling like a 'whirlpool' to an unknown destination!

2. ‘Black spheres’ located in galaxies would always be visually detectable through the blockage of light from the stars behind them and this is independent of the angle from which they are viewed. A ‘black hole’, however, can only be detected from above and below. Viewed from the side, the ‘black hole’ itself would not be visible, their presence only detectable by the spiralling of matter around them and any radiant energy streams they intermittently generate.
 
3. Rather than light being unable to escape from the gravitational field of a ‘black sphere’, the lack of electrons in a ‘black sphere’, simply means that it is physically unable to emit any light.

4. By stripping the nuclei of their electrons, through the combined action action of the ‘black sphere’s’ gravitational and magnetic fields, the creation of a massive nucleus is a credible phenomenon. Without electrons, the 'radioactive emission' of beta particles that we see from the heavier elements of the Periodic Table, just isn’t possible. In this situation, the strong force takes over from the weak force and it can bind nuclei together without limit.


Authors Note:  Scanning through the internet articles upon the topic of ‘black holes’, I was recently pleased to come across one from the NASA organisation, which also promoted the concept of a ‘black hole’ as being a ‘black sphere of matter'.

I quote the article’s first line: “Don't let the name fool you: a black hole is anything but empty space. Rather, it is a great amount of matter packed into a very small area - think of a star ten times more massive than the Sun squeezed into a sphere, approximately the diameter of New York City.”

So although it took away any novelty from my own perception, written here as item 1., it was reassuring to know that there is at least one other person or team, who have reached the same conclusion. If more people have, then it could be a very useful advance to the science of astrophysics, if the concept of ‘black holes’ in space, is replaced with the concept of 'black spherical bodies of matter' located within galaxies, which conform to the laws of gravity.

47

New Theories / Re: Why the Planets of a Solar System all orbit their Star at the same Velocity.

« on: 02/06/2016 17:04:56 »

4.   The ‘escape velocities’ published by Nasa.gov do not agree with the ‘orbiting velocities’ that you have quoted. (Mercury: 4.3Km/sec, Venus: 10.4Km/sec, Earth: 11.2Km/sec, Saturn: 35.5Km/sec, Pluto: 1.3Km/sec).

These escape velocities ↑ are how fast one has to go to escape the gravitational well of the planet, from the surface of the planet. These numbers have nothing to do with the Sun or the orbital motion of the planets, and are determined purely by the mass and size of the planets themselves.

Thanks for your reply. Complete 'error' on my part by reading the wrong line of the NASA Planetary Fact Sheet.

If these figures for planetary orbital velocities are correct and I now have no reason to doubt them, I'm wondering why I gained and retained this clear recollection of an Astrophysicist, taking part in a TV documentary upon the subject of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, explaining that all the planets in the solar system had been found to orbit the sun at the same velocity, rather than falling off in velocity, according to their size and distance from the sun. Did anyone else view the documentary and can clarify the point being made?

The object of my article was to explain how a 'common orbital velocity', could happen during the formation of the solar system and the explanation relied upon the twin concepts of each planet having an 'orbital escape velocity' where the gravitational pull is exactly matched by the centrifugal force and the impact upon the planets' orbits and orbital velocities, that results from their interacting 'gravitational forces' as they moved into the proximity of each other in their separate orbits.
 
If, as now seems likely, I completely misunderstood the point that the Astrophysicist was making as he laid out his nine stones upon the bonnet of his car to explain this recent (my assumption) scientific finding, then it removes any rationale for me to have written this article. But thanks for your replies and advice. It has been appreciated.
 

48

New Theories / Re: Why the Planets of a Solar System all orbit their Star at the same Velocity.

« on: 25/05/2016 11:49:50 »

Quote from ChiralSPO

"Yes the planets interact with each other gravitationally. But the effect is very small compared to each planet's interaction with the central star.

The rest of this is completely misguided as the planets in our solar system are all orbiting with different velocities!

Mercury reaches speeds up to 56 km/s while Venus travels at a more modest 35 km/s. Earth is even slower at 30 km/s, and the speeds decrease as you go farther and farther from the star (Saturn is going at a mere 10 km/s)."

Reply from RTCPhysics.

1.   All the Planets must circulate around the central star at their ‘escape velocities’, otherwise they will spiral in towards each other under the gravitational influence of the central star or alternatively, exit the solar system.

2.   I stated at the start of my article, that the Planets had been ‘observed’ to orbit around the Sun at the same velocities and that this was inexplicable, as under the sole influence of the Sun’s gravitational field, they should all travel at different speeds from fast to slow, reflecting the rapid fall off with distance in the magnitude of the sun’s gravitational field, mitigated only by the varying masses of the planets.

3.   However, if Newton’s formula is to be believed, then the gravitational attraction between two planets approaches infinity as the distance between them tends to zero. So by adjusting the distance between the orbits of two neighbouring planets, the gravitational force between them can reduce or negate the inwards pull of the central star upon them, whatever the star’s mass.

4.   The ‘escape velocities’ published by Nasa.gov do not agree with the ‘orbiting velocities’ that you have quoted. (Mercury: 4.3Km/sec, Venus: 10.4Km/sec, Earth: 11.2Km/sec, Saturn: 35.5Km/sec, Pluto: 1.3Km/sec).

If ‘escape velocities’ and ‘orbiting velocities’ are different entities, then there must be another force, other than gravity and centrifugal force, that acts upon the planets. Otherwise the logic in the article still seems valid. 

49

New Theories / Why the Planets of a Solar System all orbit their Star at the same Velocity.

« on: 22/05/2016 11:38:01 »

A solar system is reliant for its existence upon the balancing of two opposing forces. The first force creates an attraction between bodies of matter and the second force is the ‘kinetic energy’ of the body of matter, whose magnitude determines whether the individual planets will lock into orbit, spiral inwards towards the star or break free from the system. The limit that determines how fast a planet can orbit within a gravitational field, is called its ‘escape velocity’.

The observation that all the planets of a solar system orbit their star at the same velocity, implies that each planet must have the same ‘escape velocity’.  So the question that needs to be answered is “How does this come about?”

For the purposes of this explanation, Newton’s concept of gravity has been adopted for the attracting force between bodies of matter, rather than Einstein’s ‘General Theory of Relativity’. Both are known to work equally well, when calculating the trajectories of space probes to reach other planets, but the use of ‘gravity’ to describe the attracting force between two bodies of matter is an easier concept to adopt for this explanation.

Newton coined the term ‘gravity’ and quantified it by his iconic formula that: the gravitational force between two bodies of matter is proportional to the product (not sum) of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart. Newton's formula is based upon the concept that every ‘unit of matter’ in one body of matter, whether an atom or a molecule, an electron or a quark, attracts every other ‘unit of matter’ within another body of matter and the force between the two bodies arises from the accumulation of these unit forces. Hence m₁ x m₂ rather than m₁ + m₂.

So the magnitude of the gravitational attraction operating between two masses of the same size is exactly the same as the attracting force between two masses which have the same total mass, but have been split into a larger mass and a smaller mass. This latter situation models the situation that we have within our own solar system.

But if the ‘distance’ between these two bodies of matter is doubled, then the joint mass of the two bodies needs to be quadrupled in order to maintain the same level of gravitational attraction. And if the distance is trebled then the joint mass needs to be increased nine fold. So distance has a more attenuating effect upon gravitational attraction than variations in the amount of mass and this has played an important role in the development of our solar system from its original existence as a swirling mass of ‘gas plasma’.

The counter balancing force to ‘gravity’ for a body of matter in orbit around another, is the ‘kinetic energy’ of the orbiting body, which is referred to as its ‘centrifugal force’.  The reality of the centrifugal force can be experienced by anyone at any time, simply by swinging a weight on a rope around themselves and feeling the pulling sensation that it induces upon the arms and shoulders by the circulating weight.  Without the centrifugal force that each orbiting body of matter experiences, then all the planets within the solar system would simply spiral inwards towards the sun.
 
So, although the star is the ‘primary gravitational force’ that keeps the planets in their orbits, it is the ‘secondary gravitational forces’ between the planets, that holds the key to why the planets all orbit their star at the same velocity.
 
If Mercury was on its own in orbit around the sun, then it would orbit at its ‘escape velocity’. Slower and it would spiral into the Sun. Faster and it would exit its orbit of the Sun like a ‘sling shot’.  However, by introducing a neighbouring planet, such as Venus into an outer orbit, the presence of another planet has a significant impact upon the orbital velocity of Mercury.

As both planets are orbiting in the same direction and in the same plane, they are attracted by gravity towards each other, with the force being at a maximum when they are at their nearest point of approach. The gravitational force acts to bring the orbits of the two planets nearer together, with the planet of larger mass having the greatest effect. So Mercury would be moved into an orbit further away from the Sun and Venus is moved into an orbit nearer to the Sun. This process repeats itself upon every pass that Mercury makes by Venus.

This coming together of the two planets as they interact at their closest point, is counterbalanced by the centrifugal force generated by this orbital change. Venus speeds up, Mercury slows down, both experiencing different escape velocities to those which they would have had without each other’s presence. Venus is experiencing a greater inwards attraction through the joint gravitational effects of the Sun and Mercury, so it speeds up to a new faster ‘escape velocity’, whereas Mercury is experiencing a smaller gravitational attraction, as Venus counteracts the Sun’s gravitational influence. So Venus speeds up and Mercury slows down and equilibrium is achieved when both planets are orbiting at the same ‘escape velocity’.
 
What is effectively happening is that the two planets are adjusting the distance between themselves, such that the compounded gravitational pull that each experiences from the Sun and the other planet is at exactly the same amount. By experiencing the same gravitational force, the two planets will orbit at exactly the same ‘escape velocity’.

This process is repeated for each of the planets that exist in our solar system. During its formation, the planets constantly adjusted their distances from one another, reaching equilibrium when the gravitational pull of the inner planets upon them was matched by the gravitational pull of the outer planets upon them and all the planets settled into the same ‘escape velocity’. Measure one planet’s orbital velocity and you know the rest, which of course, includes our earth.

For the outermost planet, Pluto, (assuming that another planet does not exist in the outermost region of our solar space), its ‘escape velocity’ is determined by the total sum of all the other planets inward gravitational pull upon it, including the Sun. From Pluto’s perspective, the Sun is just another distant planet pulling it inwards.

An analogy for this 'planetary equilibrium situation' is a race upon an athletics track, where the participants are all running at the same speed, but confined to their circular lanes. The runners in the inner lanes will draw ahead of the outer lane runners and eventually will lap them, simply because the inner runners are covering a shorter distance upon each lap.
 
If any of the planets experienced a traumatic event which changed its orbital speed, shifted its orbital plane or expelled it out of the solar system, then all the planets would start the process of adjusting the distances between themselves and settle down into a pattern, which once again gave them all the same ‘escape velocity’, albeit at a different level from that which they have now.

So the gravitational pull upon an individual located on the earth is not just a function of the earth’s gravity, but is a compounded effect from all the planets including the Sun. In which case we should strictly say, that we live in a ‘Planetary system’, not a ‘Solar system’.

50

New Theories / A Theory of Magnetic Induction

« on: 11/03/2016 11:46:32 »

A Theory of ‘Magnetic Induction’.

The ability of a magnetic field to induce a current in a wire is one of the more remarkable phenomenon of physics. It happens every time a conducting material is passed through a magnetic field or vice versa, but what exactly is the ‘mechanism’ that induces a current in a wire and what causes the emergence of the magnetic field loops that surround a current carrying wire?

The creation of a magnetic field around a current carrying wire owes its presence to the property of the electron known as its ‘magnetic dipole moment’. This ‘magnetic dipole moment’ is often referred to in the literature as being ‘anomalous’ because its presence cannot be adequately explained, but it exists and not only upon electrons, but also upon the proton and the neutron.

The fact that the electron has a ‘magnetic dipole moment’ implies that it must have a magnetic field and if there is a magnetic field present, then there must be a magnetic source generating it. The inference from this is that the electron functions like a ‘tiny permanent magnet’.

If this concept of the electron as being the source of a magnetic field is unacceptable to you, then there is little point reading on, except perhaps for curiosity as to what it implies.

The implication of the ‘magnetic electron’ is that it can explain the quantum nature of a magnetic field and the presence of circulating magnetic field loops, both upon a ‘micro scale’ around the electron and a ‘macro scale’ around a current carrying wire. The term ‘circulating’ is used advisably here rather than ‘rotating’, as magnetic loops do not rotate, they travel in a circulating mode to create their own field loop.

The magnetic field loops around a current carrying wire are visibly demonstrated by the iconic ‘iron filings’ experiments and being loops, they are finite in their size. The electron’s magnetic dipole moment is the source of these magnetic loops and as there are a finite number of electrons in a wiring circuit or a permanent magnet, then there are a finite number of magnetic loops in a magnetic field. The implication of this is that all magnetic fields are ‘quantum entities’, with their ‘field reach’ determined by the longest magnetic loop in the field. No loops travel to infinity!

Magnetic field loops ‘circulate’ in a clockwise direction around a wire in the direction of the current flow and anti-clockwise if the current flow is reversed. The clockwise and anti-clockwise ‘circulating field loops’ are a unique feature of magnetic fields and is the ‘characteristic’ that creates both the ‘attracting’ and ‘repelling’ forces of magnetism.

There is no such thing as a magnetic field loop which has a north and south pole! It either circulates clockwise or anti-clockwise.
 
Magnetic field loops also have the ability to penetrate through matter as if it didn’t exist. They can never be ‘absorbed’ or ‘destroyed’. This is amply demonstrated by the earth’s magnetic field, whose loops travel some four thousand miles from the centre of the earth to the earth’s surface, before looping back again to the core. It is a remarkable demonstration of ‘penetrability’, exceeding even the neutrino’s capability. Why is this important? Because magnetic field loops can pass straight through plastic coated copper or iron wiring.

However, the path of a magnetic field loop can be deflected by the presence of another magnetic field or an encounter with a medium that is susceptible to the flow of magnetic flux and these obstacles force the loops to re-route themselves along a different pathway. Once clear of the deflecting obstacle, magnetic field loops will always return to the original path of their loop, even if the diversion has forced them down a much longer route.

The explanation of this is simply that the deflected loops are all still part of a magnetic field and as magnetic field loops cannot cross each other, the deflected loops are always constrained by their outer and inner magnetic field loops into returning back to their original pathways.

The implication of this finiteness, is that each magnetic loop must have a larger or smaller diameter than its immediate neighbours in the field by a ‘finite amount’. Without this differentiation, the loops would cease to be quantum entities and the magnetic field would devolve into a continuum, thereby breaking one of the basic rules of magnetism, that “magnetic lines circulating in the same direction repel each other”.

If you don’t accept the quantum nature of a magnetic field, then the reasoning that follows is fatally undermined, but if you just haven’t thought of a magnetic field in the context of quantum theory, then read on.

The finite nature of a magnetic loop around a current carrying wire or around a permanent magnet and its ability to rotate clockwise and anti-clockwise needs an explanation and this is met by the concept of a quantum of ‘magnetic energy’ (meq), which circulates perpetually around its magnetic field loop without energy loss.

This concept is again fundamental to the arguments that follow, so if you dismiss it, then don’t read on. But perhaps first you can reflect upon your own explanation as to how magnetic loops attract and repel each other and if any doubts arise, read on for interest.

The magnetic energy carried within a magnetic field loop is always a fixed amount, just as Plank’s constant is for the energy carried by a single photon. But for magnetic field loops, it is the circumference of the loop that determines the frequency of circulation. This ‘circulation frequency’ also determines the strength of the magnetic field at any point on the loop. Increase the loop circumference and the field strength falls off inversely with the increase, simply because the ‘magnetic energy quantum’ follows an incrementally longer perimeter pathway.

The opposite is true for reductions in the loop circumference leading to an increase in field strength. Looking at a magnetic field is a bit like looking at the spectrum of light, but seeing all the wavelengths at the same time.

From the perspective of the ‘electron’, the perimeter of its circulating loop of magnetic energy not only determines the magnitude of its ‘magnetic dipole moment’, but it also determines the electron’s wavelength. And if the ‘magnetic energy quantum’ (meq) of its field loop circulates clockwise around the orientation of the electron’s core, then the electron is said to be in an ‘up spin’ state and if it circulates anti-clockwise with the same orientation, the electron is said to be in a ‘down spin’ state.

With this model of the electron in mind, as a ‘particle-wave’ entity, having a quantum of magnetic energy circulating around its magnetic core, then the tools are in place to develop an explanation for the creation of the nested magnetic loops around a current carrying wire and subsequently the phenomenon of ‘magnetic induction’. But the first step towards this is to define what an electric current in a wire actually is.
 
The concept of an electric current has been regarded in the past as the physical flow of electrons around a wired circuit. But electrons in a wired circuit don’t move fast enough or far enough along a wire to achieve the near instantaneous transfer of energy that is seen in practice, for example, when flicking the switch in a lighting circuit. This leads to the concept of the energy flow from the generating source around a wired circuit as being a ‘vibrational phenomenon’ between electrons.

The retention of the ‘free electrons’ within their orbits around the nuclei during the passage of a vibrational current, enables the wire to retain its structural integrity during the transmission of the current. The wire only fractures when it becomes hot enough to physically eject electrons, as happens, for example, with the filament of a tungsten light bulb.

Charging up the ‘generating mechanism’ of an electric current, such as: a battery, dynamo or solar panel, requires the physical or chemical removal of electrons from their locations in the atom or molecule. The electrons are then either ‘free to flow’ or are ‘cached’ upon an insulator or insulated conductor. But what is inferred rather than explained, is where and how the electrons store this energy, when they are removed from their location around the nucleus of the atom.
 
This removal of the electron from the influence of the nucleus of an atom is the same process as separating two magnets. The particles disconnect their magnetic field loops and become independent magnets again, with the work done to separate them being stored as smaller but more ‘energetic loops’. This ability of the ‘magnetic field loops’ of two magnets to disconnect from each other when pulled apart and then to re-connect when brought back together again, is another unique characteristic of magnetic fields, which is called ‘magnetic re-connectivity’.

In order to create the magnetic field loops around a current carrying wire that gives rise to the phenomenon of ‘magnetic induction’, the electrons in the wire need to be ‘energised’, although the terminology often used in the literature to express this state is ‘excited’. What is meant by the term ‘energised electron’ is that the electron has taken on an additional quantum loop of ‘magnetic energy’ circulating around its magnetic core.

Just as an ‘energised electron’ can release radiant energy quanta from its location within the atom, so the energised electrons from the ‘generating source’ release loops of ‘magnetic energy quanta’ into the wired circuit, before falling back to their ‘ground state’. The ‘conduits’ in the wire that facilitate the flow of these ‘magnetic energy quanta’ (meq) are the ‘free electrons’, which are situated in the outer shells of the atoms. All the atoms in the conduits are located in straight lines along the array nodes, this being a defining feature of the crystalline structure of a metal conducting wire.

The input of the ‘meq loops’ from the generator into the conduits of the wire, energises each of the free electrons in turn as it is propagated along the wire. The process creates a ‘vibrational effect’ between neighbouring electrons, analogous to how sound travels through air. By this means the generator’s energy packages are transmitted rapidly along the conduits of the circuit. An important point about this vibrational interaction between the magnetic loops of the free electrons along the wire, is that there is no energy loss incurred by their transmission from the generator to the load.
 
The vibrational transmission of magnetic energy quanta is constantly repeated as the generating source releases a fresh input into the circuit and the process continues until the battery runs down or in the case of a solar cell, the sun stops shining.
 
However, there are two side effects of this process, the first being radiant energy emission and the second being the appearance of magnetic loops around the wire.

If the vibrational process is impeded by any fault in the wire, for example from a variation in thickness of the metal wire or an impurity in the metal wire or even an ionised atom, but particularly by the flipping of electrons from one spin state to another, then these faults and spin inversions in transmission, cause the energised electron to release photons, creating the heating effect in wires.

The creation of the nested magnetic field loops around the wire, happens in a more ordered way, by a process which is analogous to stroking an iron bar with a permanent magnet. Although in this case, it is the incoming ‘magnetic energy loops’ from the generating source that play this role, by lining up the ‘magnetic loops’ of the ‘free electrons’ in a common orientation and spin state along the wire and this reorienting process causes the wire to function as if it were a ‘permanent magnet’.

Just like a permanent magnet, the ordered electron meq loops head out into the spaces between the atomic arrays of the metal wire and from there are channelled by the magnetic fields of the atoms towards the surface of the wire. Once free of the wire, the ‘meq loops’ have no other option but to circulate around the wire within the plane from which they have just exited. Each new meq loop forces an already established loop to incrementally expand its diameter to accommodate it, which leads to the orderly ‘nested loop structure’ of the magnetic field in perpendicular planes around the wire.

The number of concentric loops in a perpendicular plane around the wire, is determined by the number of free electrons that are located in the array of atoms contained within each ‘cross section’ of the wire. This nested loop structure of the magnetic field generated by the current flow along the wire, then continues to exist just as long as the ‘magnetic energy loops’ are being transmitted from the generating source, keeping the wire magnetised.
 
The ‘magnetic induction’ of a current in a secondary wired circuit occurs in a similar manner to the primary wire, but for the secondary wire, the growing magnetic field of the primary circuit takes on the role of the battery by energising the free electrons all along in the secondary circuit. The growing number of meq loops that pass straight through the secondary wire, energise and re-orientate the spin state of the free electrons as they pass. This energisation of the free electrons in the secondary wire creates the same vibrational effect as the primary wire experienced from its generating source and this is transferred along the secondary wire as a brief burst of induced current.

But, just as the primary wire established its magnetic field, so the induced current flowing in the secondary wire creates its own magnetic field of circulating magnetic loops around itself. This creation of a magnetic field around the secondary wire results in the primary wire’s magnetic loops being deflected to skirt around the secondary wire’s magnetic field. This deflection of the primary wire’s meq loops, leads to an immediate cessation of the current in the secondary wire and the induced current falls back to zero.
 
The magnetic field of the primary wire still maintains its meq field loops in their deflected pathways and this status quo is only changed when the primary wire’s current is switched off. With the demise of the primary current, the primary field’s meq loops return to the primary wire and with no magnetic field around the secondary wire to deflect them, they do so by returning to their original pathways within their own magnetic field and their meq’s pass through the secondary wire once again, creating another fleetingly induced current in the secondary wire’s circuit, albeit in the opposite direction.
 
The magnitude of the induced current in the secondary wire always depends upon the number and strength of the primary field loops that pass through it. The direction of flow of the induced current is determined by the circulatory direction of the primary current’s magnetic field loops. If the field loops are experienced as circulating clockwise they transmit the secondary vibrating current one way and if they are experienced as circulating anti-clockwise, they send the vibrating current the opposite way.

The essence of this explanation of magnetic induction, rests upon three concepts: the ‘magnetic electron, the ‘quantum magnetic field’ and the circulating ‘magnetic energy quanta’. However, I suspect that most readers will be thinking: “What about the concept of electric charge!”

My reply is simply to say to you, “Is the concept of an electric charge germane to this explanation of magnetic induction?”

51

New Theories / The Link between Magnetism and Radiation.

« on: 17/01/2016 11:17:16 »

Firstly, the basics. Magnetodynamics is a ‘field of study’ arising from the largely unexplained but widely exploited phenomenon, that a wire carrying a direct or alternating current creates a magnetic field around itself. The field is referred to as dynamic because, unlike the permanent magnet, the field only exists when the current is flowing.

The field displays itself as a concentric series of magnetic rings of different radii clustered around the wire. These rings are generated at each location along the length of the wire and result in a magnetic field shaped like a series of nested cylinders.
 
The presence of this magnetic field around the current carrying wire can be observed by scattering iron filings upon a horizontal surface through which a vertical current carrying wire is passing. As with the field of a permanent magnet, the magnetic lines are differentiated from each other, being both discrete and finite in their circumference, which classifies each ring as a quantum entity.

The generating source of the magnetic field is the energy directed through the wire from a battery or a dynamo and the ‘free electrons’ in the metal wire play their role in transmitting this energy around the circuit, whilst generating infra-red radiant energy as heat within the wire and creating the magnetic field externally around the wire.
 
But the question that first needs to be answered before progressing this topic further is this:

“Are the magnetic field lines that form around a current carrying wire, exactly the same entities, as the magnetic field lines that form around a permanent magnet?”.

If you think ‘Yes’, then read on to follow through the implications of this assumption. If you think ‘No’, then please reply explaining the case for the differentiation of the two magnetic fields.

The ‘dynamic properties’ of the magnetic field around a current carrying wire appear with the use of an alternating current. In the same manner as the start-up of a ‘direct current’ flow in a circuit, the growing magnitude of the alternating current generates a series of magnetic rings with different radii around the wire, the density of the rings being governed by the magnitude of the alternating current.

Once the alternating current peaks and starts to decline, the magnetic rings cease to grow in diameter and fold back into the wire in an orderly manner, smallest diameter ring first and largest diameter ring last, finally disappearing as the current falls to zero. Reversing the current flow through the circuit, results in the magnetic rings starting to grow again, although importantly, their ‘polarity’ or more specifically, the direction of energy flow around each magnetic ring is reversed from ‘clockwise’ to ‘anti-clockwise’, when viewed in the same direction along the wire.

If these magnetic rings around a current carrying wire were uniform in their nature having an even spread of energy around their ring, then the rings would not have the dynamic capability to rotate clockwise and anti-clockwise. In order to explain how a magnetic ring can have different polarities, the assumption is made that the magnetic ring is being traced out by a ‘pulse’ of magnetic energy and the pulse will circulate clockwise or anti-clockwise around its field ring without loss of energy. This pulsing nature of magnetism gives the effect of a uniformly distributed ring of energy and explains the apparently static nature of the magnetic rings that are observed in the 'iron filings' experiment.

By increasing the frequency at which the current alternates around the conducting circuit, a critical frequency is reached, at which the circuit generates radiant energy in the ‘radio-wave’ sector of the ‘radiant energy spectrum’.

The explanation of this phenomenon lies in the lag between the creation of the magnetic rings with the current flowing through its circuit in one direction and the creation of the new set of rings of opposite polarity, when the current flows in the opposite direction. At low alternating current frequencies, the opposite polarity of the newly created rings is not a problem, as they do not interfere with each other. One set of rings grow and die, then the other set of rings grow and die in their place.

But as the frequency of the alternating current is increased, a critical frequency is reached at which the outermost ring of the established magnetic field has not had time to return to the wire, before the next set of magnetic rings of ‘opposite polarity’ have grown to replace it. The outer magnetic rings having equal diameter compete for the same space and as the new ring has an opposite polarity and is part of a growing magnetic field, the outermost established magnetic ring is displaced and repelled from the circuit as a single quantum of ‘radiant energy’.

The next cycle of the alternating current produces the next quantum of radiant energy and it is found that the frequency of the generated radio-waves is the same as the frequency of the alternating current. Looked at another way, the outer magnetic ring grows to such a size, that the time it takes for its magnetic energy to pulse around its ring is equal to the time interval elapsing between each cycle of the alternating current in the circuit.

Once despatched, the ‘radiated’ magnetic energy travels at the ‘speed of light’ in the medium through which it is passing. The magnetic ring itself travels forwards in a plane perpendicular to its direction of travel and as such, its magnetic pulse traces out a sinusoidal curve, creating the wavelike characteristic of radiant energy. The first cycle of the alternating current transmits a clockwise rotating ring, which we can now refer to as a ‘photon’ and the second cycle transmits an anti-clockwise rotating photon. This alternating process then repeats itself upon the next cycle of the alternating current.

Every set of magnetic rings located along the length of the circuit radiates a photon, although there is a delay between each location, caused by the finite time it takes the alternating current to grow around the circuit. The location of the circulating magnetic pulse at the moment of radiation, determines the direction in which each photon is transmitted and the sequential delay in the growth of the current along the wire, means that photons are radiated in all directions around the wire.
 
The consequences of this analysis of magnetic field rings and radiant energy are twofold. The first is that the radiant energy generated by an alternating current is ‘magnetic’ in its nature and secondly, that the radiated magnetic pulse travels around its ring at the ‘speed of light’, which is a characteristic of the photon.

The structural implications for the electron from these two conclusions are that the electron has a magnetic core which creates the magnetic field ring around itself and gives the electron both its ‘magnetic moment’ and its ‘wave’ characteristics.

The magnetic wave can circulate clockwise or anti-clockwise around the core, which explains the presence of the electron’s ‘spin characteristic’ and why electrons can pair-up in an attracting mode when their spins are of opposite polarity, often referred to as their ‘up’ and ‘down’ states.

The electron core itself is protected by its magnetic field ring and is therefore not directly detectable without the displacement or removal of this magnetic ring by external means. But the consequence of targeting an electron with an external source of radiant energy is that it will impinge upon the electron’s own magnetic field ring, creating an exchange of energy that alters the electron’s direction of movement. So one can never be sure of both of an electron’s location in space and its direction of movement, at the same time.

But if successful with the displacement of the electron’s magnetic field ring from its core, then the electron will exhibit the behaviour of a ‘particle’, such as is observed in the iconic ‘twin slit’ experiment and this forms the basis of the observed ‘wave-particle’ nature of the electron.

52

New Theories / Re: A Theory of Quantum Magnetism.

« on: 09/01/2016 16:47:20 »

What if all the electrons in a north pole are spin up and all the electrons in a south pole are spin down. Would this account for the interaction of the fields of the poles and be a result of the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

If all the electrons, both free and paired, are affected by the applied magnetic field, then the effect could be to split the paired electrons apart, attracting the spin-up electrons one way and the spin-down electrons the other way. This results in the state that you suggested. My first thought is that I’m not sure what is left to keep the atomic nuclei in place, once the electrons have all congregated at opposite ends of the iron bar!

If this situation could exist, then both sets of electrons will send out magnetic field lines, say in a clockwise direction from the ‘north’ end of the bar magnet and anticlockwise from the ‘south’ end of the bar magnet. When they meet up, travelling in opposite directions all around the bar magnet, they will attract each other, which does not happen with the field lines of a bar magnet.

To my mind, Pauli’s exclusion principle is more of an observation than a principle, because it does not offer an explanation as to why two electrons cannot be in the same state, just states that they can’t. If the phenomenon described as electron ‘spin’ is the characteristic that creates the electron’s magnetic moment, then two electrons will repel each other if both their ‘spins’ are rotating in the same direction. They can only attract each other if the direction of spin of one electron is reversed. This enables them to ‘pair up’ being attracted by the magnetic nature of their opposing spins.

What is also interesting to me is that this magnetic spin attraction between two paired electrons, must overpower the repelling force of their respective negative electrostatic charges. But that is wandering off the subject of magnetostatics.

53

New Theories / Re: What is the true nature of 'time'?

« on: 09/01/2016 15:19:04 »

Thanks for your approval of my post. It is reassuring to have another who views 'time' as an abstract concept that has been invented by humans. In addition, I understood that you also recognise that the 'process of change' affects everything in the universe on an ongoing basis and is the reality of existence, with or without human beings!   

54

New Theories / A Theory of Quantum Magnetism.

« on: 09/01/2016 10:56:03 »

A Theory of Quantum Magnetism.

Although the functionality of magnetism is widely exploited, with applications ranging from fridge magnets to MRI image scanners and the Large Hadron Collider, there are shortcomings in our understanding of how the basic mechanisms of magnetism actually work.
 
We are aware that protons, neutrons, electrons and quarks, all have a magnetic moment. But these magnetic moments are usually referred to as ‘anomalous’ dipole magnetic moments, ‘anomalous’ being added, because it can’t be easily explained with current theories, why these particles have a magnetic property at all!
 
The current model of the atom using the concepts of electrostatics has worked very well in explaining how the atom is structured and how it functions. But the fact that these four particle types are fundamental to the construction of the atom, suggests that magnetism must really have a significant role to play. It is certainly a fact that these magnetised particles are collectively able to work together and by doing so, create the earth’s magnetic field, the magnetic fields that exist within the sun’s plasma and those that exist in the vastness of the space between galaxies. This is not a trivial role and this article aims to explain the mechanisms that lie behind the forces of  ‘static magnetism’, more formally referred to as ‘magnetostatics’.

Magnetostatics is a distinct field of study from dynamic magnetism. Dynamic magnetism is the study of electron currents moving through a conducting wire and is more formally referred to as ‘magnetodynamics’.

Static magnetism is currently explained by ‘domain theory’, coupled with the role of the unpaired or ‘free’ electrons that are located in the outer shell of atoms. The static or permanent magnetic fields that these electrons create are most evident in the ferromagnetic elements of iron, cobalt and nickel. But key questions remain as to how the basic forces of static magnetism actually work.
 
Consider a magnetically saturated iron bar magnet. If all the free electrons of every atom are lined up in the same direction within the regular lattice structure of iron, then you would expect that their magnetic field lines would all exit via the northern end of the bar magnet and re-enter via the southern end of the bar. But in fact, the bar magnet produces a spherically shaped magnetic field around itself with the lines of force emerging from all the surfaces of one half of the bar (the northern half) and re-entering via all the surfaces of the other half (the southern half) of the bar. So how does this occur?

To explain this spherical field pattern, we need to introduce some new concepts, four precisely and can start with concept number one, which considers the ‘free electrons’ in an iron bar as behaving like ‘tiny magnets’. Once these free electrons are lined up under the influence of an external magnetic field, the electrons will attract each other and being ‘free’, will move towards congregating permanently in the middle of the bar magnet, aloof from its atomic lattice. To explain this process, imagine in your mind, three magnets of equal strength that are lined up precisely in a frictionless environment, such as that experienced by ‘free electrons’. The middle magnet will be held in place by the equalising attractive pull from both the other two magnets, but the two outer magnets will be drawn towards the centre magnet, as they have no other restraining force upon them.
 
As all electrons are indistinguishable from each other and have equal strengths in their magnetic moments, then this internal ‘magnetic attraction process’ will cause all the free electrons throughout a magnetised iron bar to congregate together in a plane that is vertical to the direction of magnetisation and located at the centre of the bar magnet. The field lines of electrons in the outer locations of this plane will reach the surfaces of the iron bar first, whereas the field lines from the more centrally located electrons are forced to the surface further down the bar and the rest, being the greatest numbers, exit through the ‘northern’ end of the bar, before they all loop around to return to their home electron via the surfaces of the ‘southern’ half of the iron bar. This congregation of the free electrons at the centre of the bar magnet is the outcome of the concept number one that electrons behave like tiny magnets that are free to move in a frictionless environment.

The rules of magnetism are well known, specifically: lines of force travelling in the same direction repel each other, those travelling in opposite directions attract, those travelling towards each other deflect and magnetic lines of force can break and re-connect to each other. But although these rules describe magnetic field behaviour, they do not explain the mechanism by which the magnetic fields of two separate magnets actually exert an attracting or repelling force upon each other.

We know from the iconic ‘iron filings’ experiment, that the filings all line up along the magnetic field lines created by the free electrons of the bar magnet. As there are many millions of electrons in the iron bar, these lines of force appear to be a continuum. But this is only a perception. Magnetic rings are ‘quantum’ in their nature, which simply means that they are discrete entities and in this case, finite in their circular length. No magnetic lines of force travel to infinity. They always circle back to their home electron.

Concept number two is that each and every ‘free electron’ has a single magnetic field ring and hence each free electron plays its part in the attraction and repulsion process that occurs between two magnets brought into the sensing range of their magnetic fields. But exactly what is a magnetic field ring?

It is evident that each electron field line must possess energy in order to attract and repel other magnetic field lines and they can usefully be viewed as an ‘energy pulse’, which circulates around the electron without any loss of energy. Within the ferromagnetic elements: iron, nickel and cobalt, the centralised free electrons are able to despatch their magnetic field rings out into the space around the magnet, maintaining each field line by this constantly circulating pulse of magnetic energy. This concept of a circulating pulse of magnetic energy around an electron is concept number three.

There is one other aspect of the iron bar’s magnetic field to consider, which leads to concept number four, the ‘figure of eight’. You may have noticed that the field lines leaving the ‘right hand side’ of the northern half of the bar magnet circulate clockwise, whereas the field lines leaving the ‘left hand side’ of the northern half, circulate anti-clockwise. This is relevant when considering the interaction between the magnetic fields of two separate magnets.

When the circular field lines of two magnets are brought together with their field lines travelling in opposite directions, clockwise and anti-clockwise, any two field lines of equal strength are able to connect together using their magnetic field ‘connectivity’ capability. They connect by linking their two field rings together to form a ‘figure of eight’. One pulse travels clockwise through one half of the figure eight, circling around the electron in the first magnet and the other travels anti-clockwise through the other half of the figure eight, circling around the electron in the second magnet. They cross at the junction of the figure eight to exchange their orbits, but avoid collisions by being out of phase by half the field ring’s diameter.

The consequence of this ‘connectivity’ is that the two generating electrons become ‘paired’, in a similar manner to the way that electrons pair up in the orbits of the atom. This pairing of the electrons between the magnets, causes their lines of force to be strengthened and hence shortened, pulling the two bar magnets physically together. This cumulative ‘figure of eight’ force is emanating from millions of electrons that ‘pair-up’ between the two magnets by their common ring diameters. This results in the attracting force that we observe between magnets getting stronger as the two magnets come closer together, allowing the shorter but stronger magnetic rings to link up, creating more newly paired electrons.

Magnetic repulsion and deflection arise from the opposite effect, whereby multiple lines of force from two separate magnets travelling in the same direction, are compressed together to create an equal and opposite reaction and, like two rubber balls being squeezed together, they repel.

The key concept here is that of the electron has a quantum magnetic field ring associated with it. The magnetic field ring explains the electron’s ‘magnetic moment’ functionality and the ability of these rings to expand in a conducive atomic environment, as presented by the transition elements of iron, cobalt and nickel and is the essence of the phenomenon of static magnetism.

This model of the electron with a particle core and magnetic field ring, equally applies to dynamic magnetism, explaining the quantum magnetic field rings that are created around a current carrying wire and the subsequent transmission of radiant energy that occurs with alternating currents. But the application of this concept to the field of ‘magnetodynamics’ has too much content to be dealt with in this article. 

55

New Theories / Re: Is a particle lattice theory an explanation of gravity?

« on: 05/01/2016 18:11:09 »

"What takes getting used to with this concept of a universal lattice of particles, is the dynamic nature of this force of gravity for a moving object. Consider, for example, our earth orbiting the sun. At any point in its orbit, it displaces the lattice particles within and around itself creating its own gravity, but as it moves on in its orbit, the lattice reforms behind it and the lattice in front is displaced recreating its gravitational field once again."

An implication of this 'WIMP particle lattice model' is that the reforming of the particle lattice behind a moving body of matter should be detectable. Scientists at Durham University observing a galaxy in motion, believe they have found evidence of dark matter trailing behind it.     

56

New Theories / Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?

« on: 23/11/2015 12:29:51 »

I have my own Fractal Foam Model of Universes, in which the cosmic foam (galaxy clusters surrounding voids) of our universe IS the aether foam of the next larger-scale universe (our super-universe), and the aether foam of our universe IS the cosmic foam of a smaller-scale universe (our sub-universe).

I am not a supporter of the concept of multiple universes, but your ‘Fractal Foam Model of Universes’ is certainly novel. It relies upon many assumptions, which cannot be proved or disproved. The fact that I’m not a supporter of the concept is therefore neither here nor there, as there is no concrete evidence that I can put forward to justify my stance. So keep up the creativity.

The only work that I’ve come across in this field, which interested me and may already be of interest to you, has been done by Universities in Canada, America and Europe, where they have created models the Universe as we see it. They have produced surprisingly realistic pictures of a universe with clusters of galaxies containing both spherical and spiral patterns and initially give you the impression that they are the real thing.

They start from the ‘big bang’ and develop over time, but what the detailed assumptions are behind the formation of stars and galaxies, I don’t know, but they must somehow use the knowledge that we have of atomic theory behind the creation of fundamental particles and the elements. (They may also use fractal theory in the early stages of particle, element and star formation.) A useful aspect of their computer models, is that they enable you to track back upon how the processes developed from the ‘big bang’ and understand why the picture of the universe developed as it did and presumably where it might end up! But that brings us into your field of multiple universes.

57

New Theories / Why particles create a diffraction pattern in the ‘Twin Slit’ experiment.

« on: 25/10/2015 09:50:14 »

To explain the diffraction of particles, the concept used here is that all ‘particles’ have two distinguishable but ‘interdependent’ components. The first is the ‘particle core’ and the second is its ‘wave function’. The ‘wave function’ is regarded as a circulating flow of energy around the electron’s ‘particle core’. Both the particle’s ‘spin’ and its ‘magnetic moment’ are associated with this ‘wave function’ and not with the structure of the ‘particle core’.  The electron has been chosen as an illustrative particle, but to be clear, the photon is not being viewed as being a particle, even though it has a ‘quantum’ nature.

The ‘wave length’ of the electron has been measured as being in the region of 10^-5 to 10^-7 metres, which falls within the ultra-violet region of the ‘Radiant Energy Spectrum of Light’.  What makes this concept work is that the ‘wave function’ of the electron is designated to be an ‘ultra-violet light' photon.  The behaviour of the electron is highly influenced by the uv photon surrounding its core, in that it causes the electron to behave like a ‘wave’, but if the electron’s wave function becomes separated from its core, then the electron will behave like a ‘particle’.

When electrons are despatched towards the two slits at similar velocities, they behave exactly like visible light photons, with its uv photon being diffracted at the slits, but it takes the electron's 'particle core' through with it. This process creates an electron diffraction pattern on the image recording screen, but it is a pattern of electron strikes that is shown, not a viewable ‘interference effect’ that coherent 'visible light' photons create when passing through the twin slits.

It does not matter if the electrons are despatched in batches or one at a time, the electron’s ‘particle core’ will always follow its ‘photon ring’ through the slits and record a diffraction pattern. If coherent visible photons are despatched singly towards the twin slit screen, then they will diffract, but there will be no visible interference pattern to be seen, unless the individual photon strikes are recorded and displayed on an image sensor.
 
If for any reason the electron and its uv photon become parted, then the electron will lose its ability to diffract and will pass straight through the slits, creating two vertical lines on the imaging screen.  Any attempt to ‘observe’ the passage of the electrons using a photon source will interfere with the diffraction process. Light beams of different wavelengths directed at each other are completely unaffected, simply passing through each other, so any attempt to monitor the electrons progress towards, through or after the slits using a photon source, will impinge upon the electron core and dislodge it from its uv photon, before being reflected away.

The energy of the observing photon, will determine the amount of degradation of the interference pattern on the screen. The higher the energy of the observing photon, the greater is the likelihood of the two components being completely separated and creating two vertical lines, as distinct from the electron’s particle core being marginally deflected from its original diffracting path and creating a degraded interference pattern.

Other particles with a larger core, such as the proton and the neutron, also have their own specific wave lengths, which are likewise associated with their spin and magnetic moment. So their behaviour in the twin slit experiments emulates the electron.

58

New Theories / Re: Is the electron the hypothetical 'magnetic monopole'?

« on: 15/10/2015 16:36:40 »

f that's what you believe then you should read the article What is spini? by Hans C. Ohanian. Am. J. Phys., 54 (6), June 1986. It's online at: http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/courses/phys425/AJP_54(6)_p500.pdf

Many thanks for this reference. It was an articulate and readable article. As I understood its content, quote1: 'spin' may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the electron. quote2: neither the spin nor the magnetic moment are internal, they are not associated with the internal structure of the electron.

Am I too far from this concept of the electron with its circulating flow of energy? My quote:The logic behind this 'theory' is that the electron ‘spins off’ a magnetic ring around itself, just as it is known to do around a current carrying wire. As such, it will have an associated magnetic angular momentum. The analogy I used for Ohanian's concept of a 'wave field' was a 'circulating pulse of magnetic energy'.

This model fits the concept of the electron as having the properties of both a particle and a wave. If so, why all the mystery surrounding its behaviour? The electron is both a particle and a wave.
 

59

New Theories / Re: Is the electron the hypothetical 'magnetic monopole'?

« on: 15/10/2015 14:36:27 »

Before dismissing the concept of magnetic monopoles on the basis of quantum mechanics theories, I might point out (I am an ether theorist) that magnetic monopoles would be a good basic-theory fit in Bioiogy, for mitosis, reproduction, and other biological processes. -One-way forces could explain their basically different dynamics compared to non-biological energy systems.

I would cite the work of Dr. Phillip Callahan who has studied possible roles of the magnetic monopole in plant dynamics.

Having kicked into touch (in my own mind) the concept of a ‘magnetic dipole’ with its north and south seeking poles, replacing them with clockwise circulating and anticlockwise circulating magnetic rings, (or equally ‘up-facing’ and ‘down-facing’ rings), I perhaps thoughtlessly included the ‘magnetic monopole’. I am aware that particles appearing to behave as magnetic monopoles have been detected in research work upon a Bose Einstein condensate held at near absolute zero temperature.
 
So, your observation upon the potential application of ‘magnetic monopoles’ in biology, forced me to clarify in my mind what a ‘magnetic monopole’ could actually be! Is it a particle in its own right on the brink of discovery or is it a ‘magnetic charge’ akin to the ‘electrostatic charge’ of classical particle physics?

If ’magnetic monopoles’ were to follow the classical concept of an electrostatic charge, then they would have to conform to the following rules:

1.   There exists a ‘north seeking’ and a ‘south seeking’ magnetic monopole.
2.   The magnetic source must be able to generate perpetual energy in order to continually produce its magnetic force field.
3.   The force field is required to leave the monopole particle in straight lines and thus must have an infinite reach.
4.   It must be assumed that the magnetic monopoles know where each other is, so that they can route their respective field lines between themselves and induce an attracting or repelling force.
5.   Accept that the magnitude of the monopole’s magnetic charge is always exactly the same.
6.   Assume that every magnetic monopole can either attract or repel every other monopole in existence, as they have an infinite reach.
7.   Hypothesise that for the universe to be a ‘null’ or ‘unmagnetised entity’, there must exist an equal number of oppositely signed magnetic monopoles.

Alternatively, on a post classical approach, hypothesise the existence of an undetectable universal ‘magnetic continuum’, which transports the energy between the locations of the magnetic monopoles within it.

Assume that the north and south seeking magnetic monopoles have no energy themselves, but take a constant quantum of energy through their interaction with the ‘magnetic continuum’.

Finally, prompted by your post, I looked up Dr Callahan and although I overlooked his work upon plant dynamics, (being short of knowledge in that field), I did spot this para:

Quote: “Dr. Callahan explains that a particle moving faster than the speed of light is called a tachyon, and a message sent by such a particle would actually arrive before it was sent. He also states that he published, in 1986, the first experimental proof that tachyon particles actually exist.”

I am not sure that I can visualise the tachyon arriving before it was sent as a ‘reality’, but, as usual, novel concepts intrigue me.

PS Having read your latest post, I realise that I did not understand what an 'ether theorist' does and what the concept of 'elemental etheric vibrational response' is. So I much doubt the value of my response to you.

60

New Theories / Re: Is the electron the hypothetical 'magnetic monopole'?

« on: 14/10/2015 08:45:10 »

A current circulating in a ring produces a magnetic field vector perpendicular to the ring. You can describe that in terms of a north and south pole. Same with the field vector of an electron.   

You could. But has that achieved anything, over and above it being an application of the first three rules of magnetism! Isn’t this a case of perpetuating a dated concept born out of the behaviour of a piece of lodestone in the earth’s magnetic field? Particularly if the magnetic field vector of the electron particle can be explained by the concept of a circulating magnetic ring. 

[/quote]

Except that they don't attract one another - they are both attracted by the nuclear charge and the shapes of orbitals suggest that electrons in any particular orbital stay away from each other. Anyway, if an electron were a magnetic monopole, it couldn't attract another electron - like poles repel.

So either an electron is a dipole as I said, or it is a dipole as you said.

I believe I made the point that the electron is neither a ‘magnetic dipole’ nor a ‘magnetic monopole’. If I did not, that is what I meant.

But may I add another property of magnetically paired electrons for your consideration. If the pair are split and physically moved apart, any distance you like, they will always retain their magnetic link and knowledge of each other’s state, even though their magnetic rings are stretched miles apart. Flip one electron and to retain their status as an attracting pair, the other electron will also flip. “Spooky action at a distance” I believe it is called.

And now for a forecast! If either of the paired electrons is released, it will re-appear with its partner!

As you point out, the current concept of the atom is based upon the concept of electrostatic charge. You put a plus sign on one particle and a negative sign on the other and they attract, a notation, I believe, coined Benjamin Franklin in his iconic work with batteries being charged (+) and discharged (-). Hence electrons are perceived as having a negative not a positive charge.

Switching to a theory of the atom based upon the rules of magnetism is a fundamental leap of imagination and perhaps too far for immediate credibility, given the amount of work that has been put into the electrostatics model. But as I intimated, there is a lot more clarity in the concept of a magnetic structure of the atom, but building of a picture needs to be taken and analysed step by step.

You did, however, take one of those steps when you said, “the shapes of orbitals suggest that electrons in any particular orbital stay away from each other.” If electrons do not have a negative charge, this problem goes away to be replaced by magnetically linked and self-contained paired electrons.