[Physics] How do you modify Maxwell's equations in nanostructures?

[Arend Lammertink]

Hello Thomas,

That is an excellent question. I've put Arto Anilla in the cc, as well as
my new physics discussion mailing list.

Arto provided an interesting paper, showing insight in the spatial
structure of particles, etc. considered from a particle physics point of
view:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/atomism.pdf

What I noticed immediately, is that the electron is considered to have a
torroid structure, which matches 1:1 to the structure Stowe/Mingst
considered in their work, which enabled them to calculate the elemental
charge e from our aether model (more references to Stowe's work in the
side-bar on my site):

http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237

The consideration of particles consisting of a number of vortexes in a
certain structure, the simplest one being the vortex ring, can be worked
out to gain a fundamental understanding of the sub-atomic world. It seems
that the electric field is a longitudinal sound-like compression wave, with
a frequency relating to the oscillations taking place in the structure, be
it an electron, a particle, or a molecule. A simple picture of how a
certain particle might look like, says more than a 1000 words or equations
for that matter:

http://www.tuks.nl/img/dualtorus.gif

Of course, it is a lot of work to work this all out completely, but the
consideration of the electron along Stowe's work already gives a lot of
insight into how structure, magnetics (rotation) and the electric field
(+gravity) are related to these basic particles, etc.

My revision of Maxwell's equations is a fundamental one, which is valid
within the limits of a continuous approximation of the medium, which is
considered to  consist of some kind of particle-like "quanta", described as
each having a momentum P = m.v.  Below you will find some notes, suggesting
this approximation is valid at a sub-atomic scale, but not all the way down
to the Planck scale, based on Stowe's calculation for the parameter L.

The point so far is that a continuous consideration of the medium is valid
at a sub-atomic scale and therefore we can describe all forces and
interactions at that scale within a continuous approximation of the medium,
for which I only worked out Maxwell's equations using text-book fluid
dynamics vector theory.

Stowe also showed how this approach is related to temperature, etc.  In my
experience, his fundamental considerations are excellent, but it is pretty
hard to get to the bottom of it and understand all of it, just from the
paper alone. At least I couldn't understand it without also considering and
studying his earlier papers and internet postings, most of which I have
collected on my site. (see side-bar on the right of my site). The major
thing I changed with respect to Stowe's is to work with the velocity field
[v] instead of the momentum field [P] for deriving Maxwell's equations, so
my dimensions are a little different then his. I think, fundamentally, a
field of force should be expressed analogous to an acceleration working on
a certain mass.


So, to answer the question: I think my version of Maxwell's equations
should work also for nanostructures. However, I've only described the field
equations. What's missing is the working out of it's implications with
respect to the structure of "particles", molecules, etc. which would
fundamentally involve a number of interacting vortexes. It is probably
possible to come to simplified models of molecules and nano-structures
analogous to the use of the continuum approach in fluid dynamics, but that
would still need to be done at this moment.

What we have now is a simple, solid foundation to build upon and the work
of Stowe who shows a number of solutions which can be worked out from this
foundation. What this foundation gives you, is a model which matches pretty
much 1:1 to the models we use to describe fluids and gasses. And this is
tremendously powerful, because this analogy allows for easy visualization
and understanding of the phenomena we are considering. From such a simple
yet powerful foundation, the working out of the math comes down to taking
the same math as is used in fluid dynamics and change the parameters
involved, such as mass density, propagation speed, etc.

All in all, the whole model is just beautifully simple, elegant and
understandable!


Best regards,

Arend.




Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
Goor, The Netherlands.

Please note that I'm currently overwhelmed with e-mails. If you're
interested in discussing science and/or physics, please consider
subscribing to the mailing list I created for that purpose:

http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics



--::--
Notes and cut/paste stuff

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweCollectedPosts

OK, let's look at "Continuum Mechanics", T. J. Chung, Prentice Hall 1988.
On page 1&2 we find:

        "To distinguish the continuum or macroscopic model from a
        microscopic one, we may list a number of criteria. ... A
        concept of fundamental importance here is that of mean free
        path, which can be defined as the average distance that a
        molecule travels between successive collisions with other
        molecules.  The ratio of the mean free path L to the
        characteristic length S of the physical boundaries of interest,
        called the Knudsen number Kn, may be used to determine the
        dividing line between macroscopic and microscopic models."

Bottom line, the limit of validity of the continuum model is when L/S < 1
period. If our boxes become smaller that L we simply can't use the
continuum mathematics.

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StowePersonalEMail

The basic physical quantities in this system are the medium properties
identified by Maxwell in his 1860-61 "On Physical Lines of Force". We
quantify the mean momentum (quanta) [ß], characteristic mean interaction
length (quanta) [L], the root mean speed [c], and a mass attenuation
coefficient [¿].

Their values are,

ß = 5.154664E-27 kg-m/sec
L = 6.430917E-08 m
¿ = 3.144609E-06 m^2/kg
c = 2.997925E+08 m/sec

In other words, *all of the major observed and measured constants of
physics can be derived from the above terms*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength

"The CODATA 2010 value for the Compton wavelength of the electron is
2.4263102389(16)×10−12 m."

So, when considering properties of the electron, we get an L/S of:

5.154664E-27 / 2.4263102389e-12 = 2.12448676899e-15,

which means we can safely use continuity mechanics at sub-atomic scales.

For Planck's length however, we get an L/S of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length, equal to
1.616199(97)×10−35 metres.

5.154664E-27 / 1.616199e-35 = 318937457.578

So, we certainly cannot use continuity mechanics at the Planck scale....
--::--

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Prevenslik <
thomas.prevenslik at gmail.com> wrote:

> Arend:
>
> Briefly, I looked over your theory. But I  have the following question:
>
> How do you modify Maxwell's equations in nanostructures?
>
> Currently, classical heat theory is used, but quantum mechanics requires
> the heat capacity to vanish. In the near-field, temperatures are computed
> in nanostructures that do not exist.
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear fellow dissident scientist,
>>
>> I have spent a lot of time analyzing the history of Maxwell's
>> equations and how those led to Relativity as well as Quantum Field
>> Theory. Based on that analysis, I found an astonishing inconsistency
>> in Maxwell's equations, which led to an incomplete model for
>> electromagnetics.
>>
>> For instance, Maxwell's equations predict only one type of
>> electromagnetic waves to exist, namely transverse waves, while in
>> actual fact at least two types of waves are known to exist, namely the
>> "near" and "far" fields:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
>>
>> By correcting this inconsistency, we can come to a Unified model in an
>> elegant, consistent and natural way. Please find my abstract below.
>>
>> You can read the full article at my personal website:
>>
>> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegan
>> tTheoryOfEverything
>>
>> I hope you are able and willing to consider my proposal and let me
>> know what you think about it. To me, it contains the answer I believe
>> science has been looking for, but of course you may differ in opinion.
>>
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
>> Goor, The Netherlands.
>>
>> P.S. I found your email address at:
>> http://editionsassailly.com/livres/climont%20full%20list%20htm.htm
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>> In a previous article, we stated that all currently known areas of
>> Physics' theories converge naturally into one Unified Theory of
>> Everything once we make one fundamental change to Maxwell's aether
>> model. In that article, we explored the history of Maxwell's equations
>> and considered a number of reasons for the need to revise Maxwell's
>> equations. In this article, we will make the mathematical case that
>> there is a hole in Maxwell's equations which should not be there,
>> given that we started with the same basic hypothesis as Maxwell did:
>>
>> A physical, fluid-like medium called "aether" exists.
>>
>> Maxwell did not explicitly use this underlying hypothesis, but
>> abstracted it away. This leads to a mathematically inconsistent model
>> wherein, for example, units of measurements do not match in his
>> definition for the electric potential field. By correcting this
>> obvious flaw in the model and extending it with a definition for the
>> gravity field, we obtain a simple, elegant, complete and
>> mathematically consistent "theory of everything" without "gauge
>> freedom", the fundamental theoretical basis for Quantum Weirdness
>> which we must therefore reject.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Conclusions
>>
>> By working out standard textbook fluid dynamic vector theory for an
>> ideal, compressible, non-viscous Newtonian fluid, we have established
>> that Maxwell's equations are mathematically inconsistent, given that
>> these are supposed to describe the electromagnetic field from the
>> aether hypothesis. Since our effort is a direct extension of Paul
>> Stowe and Barry Mingst' aether model, we have come to a complete
>> mathematically consistent "field theory of everything". And we found
>> "Maxwell's hole" to be the original flaw in the standard model that
>> led to both relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which should thus both
>> be rejected.
>>
>> ----
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161020/a344c60c/attachment-0001.html>