[Physics] Electron ring vortex topology (was: Re: Physics Digest, Vol 13, Issue 8)

[Arend Lammertink]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 6:28 PM, <cj at mb-soft.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting thoughts, but I see  problem in your logic.  You are declaring that every electron "creates" a vortex.  That process would require "energy" which apparently would have to come from the electron (as kinetic energy) and as "Spin of the vortex".  It would require that each vortex has a specific "direction", whatever that might mean.

What I'm saying is that the electron *IS* a *ring* vortex, a "smoke
ring", not that it creates a vortex.

Ring vortices are remarkably stable, as you can see in this
"simulation", although this shows only half of a ring vortex:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8

Of course, there is a certain amount of energy required to create such
a phenomenon, but once it's created you can see that as the "internal"
energy of the ring vortex.  However, as we know, an electron creates a
magnetic field around it, which does contain energy and thus requires
energy to sustain. This indeed gives a paradox, since it would suggest
the electron would continously need to provide energy to the magnetic
field. The same thing goes for the electric field emitted by an
electron. This has been addressed by Prof. Turtur, who concluded that
there is a continous exchange of energy between the electron (or
charge carriers in general) and the "vacuum":

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/turtur1e.pdf


A particular interesting property of ring vortices is that their
translational movement is always perpendicular with respect to the
ring itself, which explains the relation between the direction of the
magnetic field and the translational direction of movement of
electrons (a.k.a "current") in that there is a 90 degree angle between
the translational direction of the electron and the magnetic field
curling around the direction of translation.

Furthermore, for a ring vortex with R = 2r and L= r, Paul Stowe shows
that the fine structure constant alpha can be directly related to this
particular topology, which results in the elementary charge q being a
direct result of this ring vortex topology  (eq. 19) by working out
his definition for alpha:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0237v1.pdf


>
> But has anyone experimentally found any evidence that any element of "aether" has either mechanical kinetic energy or Spin?

The basic problem with our current science is that the electric and
magnetic field are thought to exist on their own without any
explanation about how these forces propagate trough the medium, as
explained by Freeman Dyson, which I quoted in my article:

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

"Maxwell's theory becomes simple and intelligible only when you give
up thinking in terms of mechanical models. Instead of thinking of
mechanical objects as primary and electromagnetic stresses as
secondary consequences, you must think of the electromagnetic field as
primary and mechanical forces as secondary. The idea that the primary
constituents of the universe are fields did not come easily to the
physicists of Maxwell's generation. Fields are an abstract concept,
far removed from the familiar world of things and forces. The field
equations of Maxwell are partial differential equations. They cannot
be expressed in simple words like Newton's law of motion, force equals
mass times acceleration. Maxwell's theory had to wait for the next
generation of physicists, Hertz and Lorentz and Einstein, to reveal
its power and clarify its concepts. The next generation grew up with
Maxwell's equations and was at home in a universe built out of fields.
The primacy of fields was as natural to Einstein as the primacy of
mechanical structures had been to Maxwell."


The Universe is currently thought to be "built out of fields", which
are abstract concepts. The best proof that there is something wrong
with Maxwell's equations are the well known near and far fields, as
explained in my article. There are two distinct wave phenomena around
an antenna, while Maxwell only predicts one.

Furthermore, Maxwell does not predict longitudinal "Tesla" sound-like
pressure waves, which would propagate at a speed of sqrt(3) times the
speed of light. Interestingly enough, Wheatstone measured propagation
speeds for electric phenomena vastly exceeding the speed of light as
early as 1834:

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

And there is quite some experimental data around anomalous "fast light" as well:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/





Best regards,

Arend.