[Physics] Response to queries on Electron Vortex.

[Tufail Abbas]

Hello Arend,

Please see my comments as below,

Regards,

Tufail Abbas

On 6 April 2018 at 11:31, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hello Carl,
> >
> > I would like to response to some of your queries:
> >
> >>>>>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".
> >
> > I believe that you would agree their is still lack of consensus regarding
> > geometrical meaning of energy and mass, or if the consensus is already
> made,
> > atleast I am not aware it. Let me clarify that by a geometrical
> description
> > I mean, something which can be expressed in terms of just length and
> angles.
> > I am thinking purely in terms of lengths and angles, without any mass and
> > energy. These are the same angles that is subtended by a distant stars at
> > our telescopes. These are the same lengths that gets added as volume to
> > Universe as its expands. I do not mean by it any length or angle that our
> > Universe subtend to the so called 4th dimension.
>
>
> How can one possibly add up "lenghts", which have no volume, to obtain a
> volume?
>
> To me, that does not compute at all....
>



This problem, I usually explain with the analogy of steel rods and cage.
Steel Rod from which a cage is constructed,  occupies much less volume as
compared to Cage when it is built. A cage is mostly void. Actual volume
contributed by Steel Rods is very small. But when we align them properly,
it occupies a volume which is much greater than the original volume of
steel rods.

In a cartesian coordinate system,  lines are (x, y, z) axes.

In polar coordinate we  use (r, Ɵ, ф), where by fixing two coordinates and
varying the third, we get a locus of point called line, though it may be a
curved or straight line. Basically if r is set to zero, you get lines of
infinite curvature , and you call these curved lines an absolute point. However
a practical point is never absolute , as it will always have a finite size,
hence a finite curvature (but very large curvature). Curvature is an
interesting property, which can be used to store infinite (I mean very
large) lengths within small area.

Hence I see those lengths as already stored on surface of the point
(particles) under very large curvature, being emitted as lengths as time
progresses. As soon as these lengths leave the boundary of point
(particle,) they become the part of fields of the void and acts in a
similar way as fluid behaves. That is why we find similarity between the
behavior of fluid and field. Expansion of Universe is also expressed as
equation of state.

Possibly my following answer on Quora, might provide an idea about my
understandings about physical identities of points and lines.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Universe-a-sphere-If-not-which-
shape-it-is-How-do-we-know-that/answer/Tufail-Abbas-1


>
> >
> > It is not necessary that lengths being emitted by electrons shall create
> new
> > volume at the exact location where it is created.  If the net addition of
> > length is only along the axis of Galaxy and not on the Galactic Plane
> then
> > Gravitation can be  explained as an effect of Hubble Expansion.
>
> How do you see such "emitted lengths" relate to the electro magnetic
> fields?
>

I visualize, emitted lengths are discrete , and they are in continuous
flow, away from its sources, which are points (particles). Although they
are discrete, the illusion of continuum is similar to the continuum of
fluid dynamics.

Magnetic fields are discrete length emitted along the direction which
contribute to addition of volume to Universe, though not necessarily very
near to the sources, but as I said the volume created shall pass through a
kinda series of propellers to finally get ejected mostly along axis of
Milky Way Galaxy, in both directions.

I visualize electric field as the locus of a moving points(particle) on a
Helix ( Not a circle), along which it has to move, to ensure that there is
no local creation of additional volume.No Volume is created because all
emitted lengths has a path to follow without hitting any other
point(particle ). If they happen to hit then a repulsive force is create as
in case of like charges, at large  . That is how I also think about Strong
and Weak Forces, which are not different from Electromagnetism and Gravity.
Its all about hitting and missing the point.



>
>
>
> >
> > The role of vortex movement and geometry can be related with the
> propeller
> > or turbine wing construction . Turbines rotates by transferring the
> fluid on
> > one side to other side. In my proposal, that fluid is made of discrete
> > lengths being continuously emitted by electrons on either side of its
> > dominant axis/orientation .
>
> From the wave-particle duality principle, we know that particles such
> as the electron are electro-magnetic in nature and therefore the
> electron must somehow cosist of the fluid you are referring to.
>


Electrons, up-quarks and down quarks shall be the sources of
electromagnetic field(fluid). These points are storehouse of infinite
lengths(or fluid or field) under large curvature IMHO. Possibly this is
difficult to believe, but  it is very easy to explain and intuitively
understand with physical meaning associated.

The motion of electrons or point (particles) depends upon the trajectories
along which it emits the length (fluid/field) and it also depends
 on trajectories of point (particle) with which it is interacting. And
these trajectories  in turn depends upon the curve along which the particle
is moving. In a gravitationally bound system, that curve is approximation
to helix.

For the  trajectory or the locus of emitted lengths(fields), shall
be family of logarithmic spirals. The objective is that trajectory of
emitted lengths shall completely miss the curve traced by point (particle),
so that no local increase in volume takes place.


Moreover, only observable of our Universe is "Change in Position". If
positions does not change or it changes isotropically then time does not
exist. Hence wave nature is how electron behave as a part of whole or fluid
continuum.  Particle nature is its own small contribution to the whole, as
local cyclic anisotropy that is produces to move within continuum. That is
how I see it.


>
>
>
> >
> > AVERAGE length added on either side of electron PER UNIT TIME is equal
> hence
> > electron can move only move in a circular path. The length of the TIME of
> > this reference frame of electron corresponds to the period in which
> > AVERAGING takes place. And we are well aware that time dilates.
>
> Well, we are all aware that current main stream science states that
> time dilates, but in reality that is merely a consequence of the
> errors that made it's way into Maxwell's equations. It is these errors
> which cause Maxwell's equations to be "incompatible" with the Galilean
> transform. Instead of fixing the problem, the Lorentz transform was
> invented, which demands a universally constant speed of light:
>
> http://etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf
>
>
c appears in Maxwell equations as constant, and it was interpreted as
speed. IMHO, this is the root cause of the problem.  Maxwell and other
physicist of that era like Andrew Gray, struggled a lot in allocating a
unit to electricity and magnetism in terms of meter, kg and second. Later
on we failed to allocate a unit, then Ampere was invented and we though
that issue is settled.This chapter has to reopen, to discuss the natural
units of electricity and magnetism. By natural unit I mean the physical
identity of  electrical and magnetic quantities in terms of  kg, meter,
second . Though, I would say that ultimate aim is to understand mass also
as length and second as progression of natural numbers.
 IMHo



> So, because of some mathematical freak, we ended up with a theory
> which messus up the concepts of "time",  "space" and "medium" to such
> a degree no one can make any sense out of it anymore. The result is
> that "dark  matter", "dark energy" and "spooky action at a distance",
> for example, are considered perfectly acceptable, while the simple
> beauty of the aether is rejected and ridiculed.
>

 IMHO, both the parties are partially at default. We cannot ignore that
mathematics is language in which physics is written. I see physics as
embodiment of abstraction called mathematics. Physical reality should have
components that can be written just as numbers (which includes complex and
real numbers) . However it should be possible to draw that physical number
on a piece of paper. Any small length drawn from point A to B if AB is the
minimum interval on X axis away from origin (or point) is nothing but the
so called imaginary number i, on Y-Axis it is j and on Z-Axis it  is k.
Similar to case that rotation in 2D requires two numbers, Hamilton
discovered that a rotation in 3D requires not 3 numbers but 4 numbers. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion ). I believe that necessity of a
number extra over the number of dimensions, does not require the physical
presence of an extra dimensions.

Physics shall find a way to discover the physical identities of points and
line.

Some medium is necessarily required, and action at distance is not correct.
A background is necessary. I learn from my interaction with proponents of
*"aether"* that many of them insists it to be a background which is
independent of the properties of the particles that exist and move within
it. Many insisted that it is should be a fluid filled everywhere without a
gap. I visualize aether as a flow, flow of discrete lengths or flow of
fields, flow of increasing volume.



>
>
> In a nutshell, we have all been taught concepts which are
> self-contradictory, yet we accept them as given even though great
> minds of science of the past pointed out the lunacy we find ourselves
> in decades ago:
>
>
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/TeslaPreparedStatement80stBirthday
>
> "According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing
> to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a
> semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still
> self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent
> reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those
> of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding
> space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that
> the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite
> effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are
> coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is
> entirely impossible.
>

I agree. For defining curvature of space or time, we have to first define
the physical identities of point and line. If we cannot do that, then
curvature is a purely imaginary concept.

"curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects,
straighten out the curves" is absolutely a logical statement. I agree
completely agree.

However , there is always a small time interval between action and reaction
and curvature will exist during this time period. Energy is conserved in
this Universe, but not necessarily as eternal existence, and so shall be
the curvature. For example, if 20 children are born everyday and 20 old
people dies every day in the city then population of the city will remain
constant. Similar shall be the case of energy and its curvature. If
annihilation of energy is not a correct, then I don't know how we will
explain the quantum fluctuation of vacuum.


> But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies
> as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for
> them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature
> on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all
> attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing
> the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in
> the phenomena."
>

IMHO, I think for progress to be made, both the sides should compromise a
bit on their position. I have already explained by opinion that both aether
and fields are different description of same reality. Instead of taking a
position about existence or non-existence of aether, IMHO we shall discuss
the properties, attributes and physical structure of  background and not on
name that it should have. AFTERALL, WHAT IS IN THE NAME.



>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Arend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20180408/11f700c1/attachment.html>