[Physics] Reply to Art.

[Tufail Abbas]

Hi Arend,

I would like to comment on excellent perspective that you have shared vide
you below email.

I am in agreement with vortex ring topology of electron. But for the medium
of aether, I have a different perspective.

Let me put in detail my perspective on aether, if that would be useful

Vortices can be of so many types of 2D and 3D spirals and helix/circle are
the limiting case of these vortices.

However every vortex can be produced by movement of *points(*particle*)* in
space. This movement can be created by emission of *line* (or space) from
no other source but the *point* (particle) itself.

Once these *discrete* *spaces*(line) are emmitted out from the point with
progression of time, it becomes part of the *void, *and it never goes back
inside the *point*(particle). These space are moving along fixed *x,** y,*
*z* direction. I am using void as different from space, since space exist
in void, and the void itself is like nothing.

This discrete space which is out of the *point* (particle) and cannot go
inside anymore, *constitutes the foam of aether*.  Though many would  not
agree with the notion of aether, as they have already renamed as *fields*.
Therefore, I will never dispute with anybody who says whether aether exist
or not, as *foam of aether *or *foam of fields* (of discrete spaces) are
synonymous.

Now in an atomic vortex we have basically three kinds of *point *(particles)
namely *up quark * , *down quark* and *electron*., and each represent fixed
relative orientation *x, y, z*.

An ideal point(like a perfect sphere) can have infinite orientations (or
normals). Hence for a particle to have maximum three orientations, it shall
be a *cube of finite volume*.

Howsoever small this *cube* is, it can store infinite length of *space*  by
curling up on its surface. It is not necessary that all points will have
equal proportion of x, y, z discrete spaces stored inside it. For example ,
proportion could be

Electron:

(x, y, z) = (*c*, 1/√2, 1/√2)

Up Quark :

(x, y, z) = (1/√2, 1/√2, *c*)

Down:

(x, y, z) = (1/√2, *c*, 1/√2)

In this way, *proportion* in which space is stored in each particle is
an *structure
constant *of the point particles that we are made of.

The physical meaning of the x, y and z orientation are dimensions of our
Milky Way Galaxy in which we exist. X axis is along the axis of galaxy and
YZ are on Galactic Plane,

For a particular particle, the direction along which space is dominant, it
will contribute to expansion of universe, and it will *gravitate or remain
stationery *on the plane defined by other two directions.

If we combine equal proportions of all kind of *particle* (cubes) it will
collapse on the *surface of gravitation,* which is sphere. If we can create
a different set combining particles in different proportions  (X,Y, Z) = (A
, B , C) at different relative coordinates , then for each set we will have
different structure constants. For a superset containing many such
sets, *structure
constant* would be derived from complex space of states which is like
wave-function.

Basically every physical structure big or small occupies an average volume
in space and it will have a dimensionless structure constant associated
with its volume (averaged over time). That is how we should interpret
wave-functions IMHO.

Regards,

Tufail



On 29 March 2018 at 12:09, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
>
> There is quite a fundamental problem in Maxwell's equations in that even
> though he started out at the aether hypothesis, he abstracted the
> connection to the underlying medium away. The problem is that there is a 90
> degree angle between the motion of electrons (current) and the direction of
> the resulting magnetic field, which is a rotational phenomenon.
>
> The reason for this 90 degree angle is because the electron has a vortex
> ring topology, whereby the propagation direction of the vortex ring is
> always perpendicular with respect to the radius of the ring. So, when a
> vortex ring propagates trough the aether, you get a resulting rotatational
> movement (the magnetic "field") around the direction of motion.
>
> When we return to the aether hypothesis and realize that the magnetic
> field is a rotational phenomenon (mathematically expressed by the rot (or
> curl) operator) while we know transverse waves are impossible in a fluid
> medium, we come to the conclusion that the far field must consist of
> (expanding) ring vortices, while the near field is an actual transverse
> wave, occuring at the boundary between two media with a different density
> (the antenna and the air).
>
> I have written an article about the history and background of a/o
> Maxwell's equations:
>
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNature
>
> And I've done an attempt to re-derive Maxwell's equations from a basic
> fluid dynamics aether model:
>
>
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOfEverything
>
>
> Very interesting detail, IMHO, is that the Helmholtz decompositon is
> included in the vector Laplacian, which enables us to equate the E and B
> fields to two terms included in the vector Laplacian for the aether flow
> velocity field [v].
>
> This way, everything fits together like magic, while the whole thing
> transforms nicely under the good old Galilean transform and thus we won't
> need the Lorentz transform anymore, which demands a universally constant
> speed of light:
>
> http://etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf
>
> At the same time, we eliminate the unwarrented "gauge freedom", which
> forms the basis for QFT, which is quite natural, since there is no "gauge
> freedom" in a fluid-like medium, including the aether, of course.
>
> Besides explaining what the near and far fields are, we also introduce
> longitidinal "Tesla" sound-like pressure waves, which propagate at a speed
> of sqrt(3) times c, which undoubtly plays an important role in actually
> explaining Young's experiment.
>
> Regads,
>
>
> Arend.
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Peter Jackson <
> Peter at peterjacksonarchitects.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The gradual change from 90 degree phase shift you suggest ‘must’ happen
>> isn’t evidenced as far as I’ve found except in specific circumstances in
>> diffuse fields where it’s evidenced by birefringence (or to be precise
>> multirefringence). But there is another option which is consistent with
>> evidence. The whole change from near to far field, unexplained by Maxwell
>> (or as the transform from from Fresnel to Fraunhoffer) Can happen far more
>> abruptly and may be very important in advancing understanding generally. It
>> has parallels in both Special Relativity (The ‘Lorentz transformation’) and
>> Quantum Mechanics (the unexplained 90 degree phase shift in the sine curve
>> pairs).
>> One simple mechanism, lets say at the surface of an antenna moving
>> through a field or similarly a planet moving through a heliospheric rest
>> frame (is that a dense ‘surface’ electron layer is propagated (as found in
>> surface fine structure & shocks), which a field particle absorbs EM
>> radiation and re-emits in it’s OWN LOCAL centre of mass rest frame. That
>> gives a ‘Discrete Field’ model of local physics with physical transitions
>> between. Now do what Maxwell recommends and use thought to find
>> implications. Firstly Einstein’s final 1952 concept of inertial systems as
>> ‘fields in motion within fields’ makes sense, then you should find all else
>> falls into place. A bit shocking perhaps but if you do what Maxwell
>> suggests it’ll work.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Physics mailing list
>> Physics at tuks.nl
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180330/4b657165/attachment.html>