<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hello Thomas,<br><br></div>That is an excellent question. I've put Arto Anilla in the cc, as well as my new physics discussion mailing list.<br><br></div>Arto provided an interesting paper, showing insight in the spatial structure of particles, etc. considered from a particle physics point of view:<br><br><a href="http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/atomism.pdf">http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/atomism.pdf</a><br><br><div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra">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):<br><br><a href="http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237">http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237</a><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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:<br><br><a href="http://www.tuks.nl/img/dualtorus.gif">http://www.tuks.nl/img/dualtorus.gif</a><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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. <br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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. <br><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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. <br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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. <br><br>All in all, the whole model is just beautifully simple, elegant and understandable! <br><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best regards,<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Arend.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><br></div>Arend Lammertink, MScEE,<br></div>Goor, The Netherlands.<br><br></div>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:<br><br><a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br><div><div><div><br><br><br>--::--<br><h2>Notes and cut/paste stuff</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweCollectedPosts" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.<wbr>php/Main/StoweCollectedPosts</a>
</p>
<p>OK, let's look at "Continuum Mechanics", T. J. Chung, Prentice
Hall 1988. On page 1&2 we find:
</p>
<pre> "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."
</pre><p>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.
</p>
<p><a href="http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StowePersonalEMail" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.<wbr>php/Main/StowePersonalEMail</a>
</p>
<p>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 [¿].
</p>
<p>Their values are,
</p>
<pre>ß = 5.154664E-27 kg-m/sec
L = 6.430917E-08 m
¿ = 3.144609E-06 m^2/kg
c = 2.997925E+08 m/sec
</pre>
<p>In other words, <b>all of the major observed and measured constants of physics can be derived from the above terms</b>.
</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr>Compton_wavelength</a>
</p>
<p>"The CODATA 2010 value for the Compton wavelength of the electron is 2.4263102389(16)×10−12 m."
</p>
<p>So, when considering properties of the electron, we get an L/S of:
</p>
<p>5.154664E-27 / 2.4263102389e-12 = 2.12448676899e-15,
</p>
<p>which means we can safely use continuity mechanics at sub-atomic scales.
</p>
<p>For Planck's length however, we get an L/S of:
</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr>Planck_length</a>
</p>
<p>In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616199(97)×10−35 metres.
</p>
<p>5.154664E-27 / 1.616199e-35 = 318937457.578
</p>
<p>So, we certainly cannot use continuity mechanics at the Planck scale....
</p>--::--<br><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Prevenslik <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas.prevenslik@gmail.com" target="_blank">thomas.prevenslik@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Arend:</div><div><br></div><div>Briefly, I looked over your theory. But I have the following question:</div><div><br></div><div>How do you modify Maxwell's equations in nanostructures?</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Thomas</div><div><br></div><div> </div></font></span></div><div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Arend Lammertink <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lamare@gmail.com" target="_blank">lamare@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear fellow dissident scientist,<br>
<br>
I have spent a lot of time analyzing the history of Maxwell's<br>
equations and how those led to Relativity as well as Quantum Field<br>
Theory. Based on that analysis, I found an astonishing inconsistency<br>
in Maxwell's equations, which led to an incomplete model for<br>
electromagnetics.<br>
<br>
For instance, Maxwell's equations predict only one type of<br>
electromagnetic waves to exist, namely transverse waves, while in<br>
actual fact at least two types of waves are known to exist, namely the<br>
"near" and "far" fields:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr>Near_and_far_field</a><br>
<br>
By correcting this inconsistency, we can come to a Unified model in an<br>
elegant, consistent and natural way. Please find my abstract below.<br>
<br>
You can read the full article at my personal website:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOfEverything" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.<wbr>php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegan<wbr>tTheoryOfEverything</a><br>
<br>
I hope you are able and willing to consider my proposal and let me<br>
know what you think about it. To me, it contains the answer I believe<br>
science has been looking for, but of course you may differ in opinion.<br>
<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Arend Lammertink, MScEE,<br>
Goor, The Netherlands.<br>
<br>
P.S. I found your email address at:<br>
<a href="http://editionsassailly.com/livres/climont%20full%20list%20htm.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://editionsassailly.com/li<wbr>vres/climont%20full%20list%20h<wbr>tm.htm</a><br>
<br>
----<br>
<br>
Abstract<br>
<br>
In a previous article, we stated that all currently known areas of<br>
Physics' theories converge naturally into one Unified Theory of<br>
Everything once we make one fundamental change to Maxwell's aether<br>
model. In that article, we explored the history of Maxwell's equations<br>
and considered a number of reasons for the need to revise Maxwell's<br>
equations. In this article, we will make the mathematical case that<br>
there is a hole in Maxwell's equations which should not be there,<br>
given that we started with the same basic hypothesis as Maxwell did:<br>
<br>
A physical, fluid-like medium called "aether" exists.<br>
<br>
Maxwell did not explicitly use this underlying hypothesis, but<br>
abstracted it away. This leads to a mathematically inconsistent model<br>
wherein, for example, units of measurements do not match in his<br>
definition for the electric potential field. By correcting this<br>
obvious flaw in the model and extending it with a definition for the<br>
gravity field, we obtain a simple, elegant, complete and<br>
mathematically consistent "theory of everything" without "gauge<br>
freedom", the fundamental theoretical basis for Quantum Weirdness<br>
which we must therefore reject.<br>
<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
Conclusions<br>
<br>
By working out standard textbook fluid dynamic vector theory for an<br>
ideal, compressible, non-viscous Newtonian fluid, we have established<br>
that Maxwell's equations are mathematically inconsistent, given that<br>
these are supposed to describe the electromagnetic field from the<br>
aether hypothesis. Since our effort is a direct extension of Paul<br>
Stowe and Barry Mingst' aether model, we have come to a complete<br>
mathematically consistent "field theory of everything". And we found<br>
"Maxwell's hole" to be the original flaw in the standard model that<br>
led to both relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which should thus both<br>
be rejected.<br>
<br>
----<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>