[Vern]

I agree.  There's way to many ideas out there.  But how fascinating.  I've just seen Photonic theory.  Where did that come from?  It must have been sleeping lower down in the list.  And a new one - Theory of Eveything - Pair Production?  I've got plenty to keep me busy.  Especially as the latter has a whole lot of equations.  I might have to ask you to define them for me.

The two papers you reference share very similar concepts. One of the main concepts is the size of the electron. We both see this size as having a circumference equal to the wavelength of a photon of the same mass equivalence.

I've studied many alternative theories; and you are right, there are lots of real gems. Many are similar to the device you propose. One seeks to charge an inductor, then break the circuit and capture the back EMF generated by the field collapse of the inductor. This looks like what you're doing.

Then there are many over-unity claims using AC motors in tuned circuits. These can be very efficient, as in our newer air conditioners, but none are really over-unity.

[witsend]

Hi Vern.  I've seen your profile and you're also an electrical engineer.  How do you explain current flow?

I've just seen your thread - and am fascinated.  But I cannot see why it is relevant to a unifying theory.  Can I impose on you to explain this?

Regarding the experiment - I can only ask anyone interested to test it for themselves.  Or dismiss it.  But don't please presume it's wrong until you've established it experimentally.  Sophiecentaur seems to think that he must first be overwhelmingly convinced from the argument to justify the phenomenon.  Perhaps he's right.  But my argument appears to be too obtuse - which I find extraordinary.  I use simple language and simple logic.  I think it's the simplicity that everyone find's offensive.  If collapsing fields in the inductor did not generate a second cycle of electric current then our inductive laws are wrong.

It strikes me that you guys have gone to extraordinary lengths to explain away the benefit of this.  Phase lag and wasteage aside, the measurable gain is extraordinary and unequivocal.   

[Vern]

Hi Vern.  I've seen your profile and you're also an electrical engineer.  How do you explain current flow?

I've just seen your thread - and am fascinated.  But I cannot see why it is relevant to a unifying theory.  Can I impose on you to explain this?

I'm not an electrical engineer; those guys work the power grid; I'm an electronics engineer; we play with computer circuitry and such. Current flow is pretty well established as the movement of electrons. We suspect this because we can physically move electrons and notice that they produce all the effects we see around a wire that is carrying electric current.

A unification theory shows how all four forces of nature can be the same thing. My speculation is that all the forces are electromagnetic. The other thread you referenced contains the same speculation. It seems that we independently came up with the same equation for electron size.

It strikes me that you guys have gone to extraordinary lengths to explain away the benefit of this.  Phase lag and wasteage aside, the measurable gain is extraordinary and unequivocal.

Our reluctance to invest in the experiment is due to our knowledge that it can not produce over-unity.

[witsend]

Still puzzled.  I thought the mass/size of an electron was known?  Is it variable within a field?  In other words is it able to express a range of frequencies like the photon? 

Our reluctance to invest in the experiment is due to our knowledge that it can not produce over-unity.

Our scientific history speaks to this kind of certainty. 

Sorry - this is the third modification of this post.  If the fundamental force is electromagnetic then, presumably all is constrained to light speed?  How then do you accommodate the non-locality paradoxes?

[Vern]

Still puzzled.  I thought the mass/size of an electron was known?  Is it variable within a field?  In other words is it able to express a range of frequencies like the photon?

The mass of the electron is known to a high precision, however all attempts to measure its size have found nothing. The mass and size are constants. Mainstream physics holds that the electron is a point from which charge emanates. We suggest that charge emanates from a shell equal in circumference to the wave length of equivalent energy. 

Our reluctance to invest in the experiment is due to our knowledge that it can not produce over-unity.

Our scientific history speaks to this kind of certainty.

Yes; I know of many accounts.

Sorry - this is the third modification of this post.  If the fundamental force is electromagnetic then, presumably all is constrained to light speed?  How then do you accommodate the non-locality paradoxes?

Yes; all is constrained to light speed, since in our scheme, everything is made of light. Your scheme has everything made of a composite of sub-particles moving at twice the speed of light. Non-locality entanglements suggest infinite speed.

I am puzzled by non-locality entanglements just as are most physicists.

[jerrygg38]

I agree.  There's way to many ideas out there.  But how fascinating.  I've just seen Photonic theory.  Where did that come from?  It must have been sleeping lower down in the list.  And a new one - Theory of Eveything - Pair Production?  I've got plenty to keep me busy.  Especially as the latter has a whole lot of equations.  I might have to ask you to define them for me.

The two papers you reference share very similar concepts. One of the main concepts is the size of the electron. We both see this size as having a circumference equal to the wavelength of a photon of the same mass equivalence.

I've studied many alternative theories; and you are right, there are lots of real gems. Many are similar to the device you propose. One seeks to charge an inductor, then break the circuit and capture the back EMF generated by the field collapse of the inductor. This looks like what you're doing.

Then there are many over-unity claims using AC motors in tuned circuits. These can be very efficient, as in our newer air conditioners, but none are really over-unity.

When I think of tuned circuits producing huge amounts of energy, I must return to Con Edison. They had problems with a huge welding company. The welder would spike the transmission lines so terribly that the generators would cause everyone to suffer.
  How to solve the problem? Well they used a series capacitance circuit. If you start with 13,000 volts and you make a mistake in the design you surely will get over unity. You could get a million volt resonant spike.
  Is that over unity? Surly from a voltage viewpoint it is. From an energy viewpoint, resonant circuits may appear to be over unity some of the time. especially if that one million volt pulse comes into your building. Everyone would be cooked.

  Some people used to have fun with the telephone company long ago. They would produce over-unity circuits and destroy phone switchboards.

  These circuits are not perpetual motion. They exist and can be scarry or fun. The Con Edision circuits were well designed. They did not resonate. No one died. However the series street lighting circuits did kill many linemen. The problem is that once a simple several thousand volt series circuit becomes broken, the transformer rises to extremely high voltages.  A poor lineman would pick up the wire and it would kill him. Thus another type of over unity circuit is very destructive.

[Vern]

Yes; any switched inductive circuit produces over-unity voltage. I gleaned from witsend that over-unity power was the claim. The circuit reminds me of similar ones that charge an inductor or capacitor, then switch off the circuit and discharge the inductor or capacitor through a load. The assumption was that the discharge current was free, which is not the case.

[jerrygg38]

Yes; any switched inductive circuit produces over-unity voltage. I gleaned from witsend that over-unity power was the claim. The circuit reminds me of similar ones that charge an inductor or capacitor, then switch off the circuit and discharge the inductor or capacitor through a load. The assumption was that the discharge current was free, which is not the case.

  It seemed to me that many people might confuse over unity voltage with over energy. To me the only source of overenergy is the stored energy of the atoms such as radioactive or the stored energy of the proton.
  In my latest theory the minimum quark energy of the proton is approximately 226 MEV. Therefore we must hit the proton with at least 226 MEV to dislodge this quark. Then it will disintegrate into its three quarks which degenerate into pi-mesons and u-mesons and later positrons.
  I used to like to build relay energy sources from a charged capacitor. With no apparent power the relay would work. However the energy was built up prior to the action.

[Vern]

In my latest theory the minimum quark energy of the proton is approximately 226 MEV. Therefore we must hit the proton with at least 226 MEV to dislodge this quark. Then it will disintegrate into its three quarks which degenerate into pi-mesons and u-mesons and later positrons.

I'm surprised that you keep quarks as a part of matter since your dot wave doesn't resemble the standard model photon. What is your concept of a photon?

[jerrygg38]

In my latest theory the minimum quark energy of the proton is approximately 226 MEV. Therefore we must hit the proton with at least 226 MEV to dislodge this quark. Then it will disintegrate into its three quarks which degenerate into pi-mesons and u-mesons and later positrons.

I'm surprised that you keep quarks as a part of matter since your dot wave doesn't resemble the standard model photon. What is your concept of a photon?

   As my theory went out to 130 universities a few months ago, I got about 10 responses. As I was getting the responses, I started to read several books on quarks. I also found Planks equations on the internet.
At the same time I found that my concept of a cloud of dot waves was not satisfactory.
   Planks equations were very interesting. I came to accept the Plank radius of 1.616252E-35 as the min radius in the universe. Instead of my own minimum, I used Planks.
  Thye net result of my latest studies and the comments from the Professors was that I came to accept the quarks as true. Then I realized that mass is a gyroscopic action.
   My whole theory changed. Now let us look at a photon. It is a planar device. It oscillates from a particular radius to the Plank radius. At the same time it spins.
  What happens if we spin a bipolar electric field?
   A force is developed in the perpendicular direction. Thus the photon has a force perpendicular to its spin.
  F = ma
 The mass parallel to the plane is finite. The mass perpendicular to the plane is zero. Therefore the acceleration of a photon is infiniite.
The plane spinning wave goes from zero velocity to the limiting velocity with infinite acceleration because it has no mass opposing the motion.The limiting velocity is light speed.
  Therefore the photon is a plane wave which spins and then looks like a screw thread if we follow it at the speed of light.

[witsend]

Jerry, I'm getting back to this point from your thread, only because it's relevant to this topic.

The mass of the photon is zero.  So.  If E=mc^2 - and if the photon's mass is zero - then, indeed, the product of zero times any velocity at all is still zero - indicating that the photon has no innate energy to move it in any direction at all.

If however, E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 where p = momentum then one can say that the energy of the photon, albeit without any mass - is indeed light speed.  But that equation is actually only saying that if it hasn't got mass then just check out its velocity and use that. What, for instance, if a theoretical particle had a negative mass quotient and a velocity of twice the speed of light?  Surely it's energy would still equate to its momentum?  Therefore,assuming it is half the mass of a photon, then it's energy quotient would be 2c?  So why any constraint to light speed unless there's also some theoretical constraint to something having less mass than a photon?  And if it is valid to conceptualise t- then it is also valid to conceptualise m-.

The problem with 'non-locality' is simple.  Paired particles are seen to adjust their spin simultaneously.  But the interesting thing is this.  If you influence the spin of the one particle of a pair the other automatically adjusts its spin to compensate.  This is known to exceed light speed and has been tested at separation distances of 11 kilometers.  It's an uncomfortable truth that light speed has been breached.  So why the insistance on any constraints.  I can see that light speed is the limit of any particles with mass.  I do not see why it should apply to particles that have no mass.  The question is, obviously, that if such particles exist they would be tachyons and how then would one ever detect them?  We need light to measure light.  We have no faster gauge.  If something therefore exceeded the speed of light and had less mass than a photon - then how does one actually prove the existence of such a particle?  It would forever be nothing more than a theoretical supposition.
       

[Vern]

Therefore the photon is a plane wave which spins and then looks like a screw thread if we follow it at the speed of light.

But we have studied photons relentlessly. Some are spin polarized so that they spin around an axis in the direction of their travel. This spin carries angular momentum that is conserved and conveyed to any impacted particle. Experiments testing this are very well documented. Some photons are not spin polarized and move through space with little or no spin.

[Vern]

The problem with 'non-locality' is simple.  Paired particles are seen to adjust their spin simultaneously.

This is not quite true. It comes from the Quantum Mechanical concept of superposition which states that the spin state of the paired particles are both up and down simultaneously until one is observed. Then both particles collapse into either up or down spin state. It is not a problem if you accept the premise that the particles acquired their spin state when they were created. There is no proof that the later is not the case. This is why it is not possible to use superposition as a communication tool.

This is yet another case where reality does not agree with QM theory; therefore reality is wrong. []

[witsend]

Sophiecentaur, I've answered your question as to whether or not I'm true to science. Your answer - 'No advance in science since QM?  What a statement.' is based on what?  I never said that.  Not even close.  Yet again.  Do you read what I've written or do you imagine what I've written?  To put the question in gentler terms, is it a deliberate or unintended distortion of the truth?  Do you rely on these 'distortions' to invent grounds for criticism?  Or, to put it another way, is it your nature to criticise and when you can't find an excuse your own subconsious inventiveness kicks in?  I'm really interested.  You see I've seen all kinds of bluster.  But you've taken it to new dimensions.  Bluster a la Sophiecentaur.  Here's the recipe.  Take the object of a communication -  reverse it - then attack it.  Extraordinary.       

But indeed, if you are equal to the task I would love you to make it work.  Put the apparatus together, make sure you've got a really good switch to control those duty cycles and sweep through the frequency range.  When it first goes into resonance then compare DC and ACrms voltage measurements.  If the former is less than the latter then compare it to my figures.  If it's out it wont be too far out, provided always that the inductance on the resistor approximates the value in the test.  It can be greater.  The more inductance the better.  I've no idea if there's an upper limit.  Then check the actual temperature rise and you'll find that the v squared over r analysis is out by some small factor.  That's attributed to losses in the system and phase lag.  When you've done this, then.  Get some colleagues to check the numbers, and then publish, or make a battery recharger cum camp site light or whatever application you can think of and then sell it.  Whatever you want.  If you can persuade someone to manufacture a really robust MOSFET you could also apply it to your average household geyser. Maybe you could make up the difference still needed to pay for you yacht.  And it wouldn't need to take you away from your part-time teaching post.  Do it as a hobby.

The numbers in my last post explain the difference in 'SIZE' between the electron and the proton - the proton being precisely 1836 times greater than the electron.  Actually not quite.  It's a small fraction greater than this. I allow for that fraction in the proposal that the second and third truant are two dimensional spheres.

There is a lot to understand in the model. Yet its also so simple.  I look to broken symmetry in magnetic fields as the source of ALL energy. 

I go to some considerable lengths to show how the model accounts for hydrogen lines.  It is explained at length as the fusion between three electrons within a flux field some singularity that disturbs the otherwise orderly arrangement of magnetic strings.  The flux separates from the field at that moment when these three electrons fuse.  It results in the ejection of a single electron, those three truants that are within the boundary constraints of the field.  And the at that same instant is the fusion of the two truants and the one binding truant x 3 to form the proton.  Then also - for symmetry, is the incorporation to that structure of at least 1836 zipons that then orbit the atom. It becomes a closed system.  The electron, expelled from the proton is trapped in the orbiting field of zipons which become the atom's energy levels.  So.  I have proposed that these 'energy levels' are, in fact, orbiting fields of zipons.   I also account for the creation of more complex atoms resulting from further fusion where the zipons are extracted from this field or 'closed system'.  In other words in the periodic table the more complex the atom the less the number of zipons orbiting because they've been 'taken' from the initial quantum at that first singularity.  I also allow for the creation of deuterium at that same singularity where the hydrogen atoms are formed.  Possibly also tritium.  This, I propose accounts for the non-linear formation of atoms in that table.
 
You know what my actual challenge is?  To see if I can get you to take this seriously. 

[witsend]

Vern - with respect - the actual proof of superluminal communication was established as the artificial influence on one particle that INSTANTANEOUSLY influenced the other in paired photons.

I am not referring here to the EPR Effect.

I would be glad if you or Jerry could answer the question regarding negative mass.

[Vern]

Vern - with respect - the actual proof of superluminal communication was established as the artificial influence on one particle that INSTANTANEOUSLY influenced the other in paired photons.

I am not referring here to the EPR Effect.

I would be glad if you or Jerry could answer the question regarding negative mass.

I must have missed the question regarding negative mass. IMHO it does not exist.

Here's a Wiki article on photon entanglement. It seems to indicate that communication via the process is not possible.

Instantaneous communication by means of quantum entanglement is actually impossible because neither side can manipulate the state of the entangled particles, they can only measure it (see No-communication theorem). This fact means that if you measure one particle you cannot infer anything meaningful about the observers measuring the other particle, except you know what state they will measure, or have already measured. Thus causality is preserved.

[witsend]

The mass of the photon is zero.  So.  If E=mc^2 - and if the photon's mass is zero - then, indeed, the product of zero times any mass at all is still zero - indicating that the photon has no innate energy to move it in any direction at all.

If however, E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 where p = momentum then one can say that the energy of the photon, albeit without any mass - is indeed light speed.  But that equation is actually only saying that if it hasn't got mass then just check out its velocity and use that. What, for instance, if a theoretical particle had a negative mass quotient and a velocity of twice the speed of light?  Surely it's energy would still equate to its momentum?  Therefore,assuming it is half the mass of a photon, then it's energy quotient would be 2c?  So why any constraint to light speed unless there's also some theoretical constraint to something having less mass than a photon?  And if it is valid to conceptualise t- then it is also valid to conceptualise m-.

I've copied it again.  I'm so pleased you're on line.  Can you apply yourself to this?  What does IMHO stand for?

[Vern]

IMHO; In My Humble Opinion.

I'm editing so the post will change; I suspect that t- does not exist just as m- does not exist.

My speculation is that the photon does not HAVE mass the photon IS mass. Mass is electromagnetic change. It is a fact that any place you have electromagnetic change in a defined location, it is massive.

[witsend]

Thanks Vern []
Sorry I thought I was previewing - in fact I was posting.  One day I'll find my way around this system.

I'm not questioning whether it exits or not.  My question is to do with that equation.  Does it preclude it's existence?

[Vern]

My question is to do with that equation.  Does it preclude it's existence?

I suspect that equations can not preclude, or include any reality. They can only describe it. I can easily make an equation that describes multiple dimensions, and I can add another dimension to it simply by inserting a comma and a number. The equation might have nothing to do with reality.


Here's a post by lightarrow describing photonic mass.

A couple of photons not travelling in the same direction has mass, because you can find a reference frame where the total momentum of the system is 0:

E2 = (Mc2)2 + (cP)2

E = energy of the two photons' system = E1 + E2 = 2E1, with two equal photons, where E1 is a single photon's energy (energy is additive).
M = mass of the two photons' system.
P = momentum of the two photons' system = P1 + P2 where P1 and P2 are the momenta of the  photon 1 and 2, respectively.

A single photon's momentum is, in modulus: |P1| = |P2| = E1/c.

So, if the two photons are not travelling in the same direction:

|P| = |P1 + P2| < 2|P1| = 2E1/c

so

P2 = |P|2 < 4E12/c2   →   -P2 > -4E12/c2

(Mc2)2 = E2 - (cP)2 = (2E1)2 - c2P2 > 4E12 - c24E12/c2 = 0

so

(Mc2)2 > 0

that is:

M > 0.

So it's light which has mass when confined in a fixed space.