GRAVITY AS
NUCLEAR ELECTROSTATIC DIPOLES
IS MAGNETISM ULTIMATELY
ELECTROSTATIC?
Years of evidence
for charge polarization inside electrons
and atomic nuclei, from high energy collision data, permit the hypothesis that electrostatic dipoles
inside atomic nuclei can account for
the magnetism of current carrying
wires. As parallel current carrying wires are drawn further apart, the
force between them, whether attraction or repulsion, decreases as the
reciprocal of the distance. If we consider infinitesimal segments of wire, and
assume the force decreases in proportion to the reciprocal of the distance
squared, Ampere
showed that this implied for wires of various
lengths the force was as observed, inversely proportional to the distance
between them.
But you say, the force between electrostatic
dipoles decreases as an inverse fourth power of distance, how can this cause an
inverse square force for infinitesimal or Angstrom long segements?
The answer is that the electrostatic dipoles increase in proportion to the distance between
them. That is, attractively oriented collinear electrostatic dipoles transverse
to a pair of attractive parallel current carrying segments interfere
with each other less as they are drawn further apart. Thus the inverse fourth
power electrostatic dipole force reduces to an inverse square force for
infinitesimal segments of parallel wires – which, after integration, reduces
further to the observed force between parallel current carrying wires,
inversely proportional to distance.
We can represent this
mathematically as follows:
F= -9(109
) (rnAev/c)(rnAev*/c)dsds*/r4 = -10-7ii*dsds*/r2 .
The currents are, i, and i* equal to the number of electrons,n,
(of charge,e, and mass, m) per unit volume, times A, the cross section
area of the wire, times v or v*, the drift velocity of the electrons in the
wire in the direction of current, where v = eEt/m
along the length of the wire as E acts
for the times between thermal collisions every
t = (2)10-14 seconds for copper and c is Ö3 times the speed of light. The collinear electrostatic dipoles per
unit length associated with the parallel currents are (rnAev/c)
and (rnAev*/c). The negative sign indicates the
parallel currents are in the same direction and so like the collinear dipoles,
are attractively oriented.
But you say,
the electrostatic dipole model of magnetism seems to contradict the evident
transparency of metals to magnetic fields though not to electrostatic
fields! Not at all! The reason essentially is because the
electrostatic dipoles, though numerous, are so small. Consider two parallel
current carrying wires, one on either side of, and, 1 mm of insulation from, an
equally long, 2mm thick metal strip not carrying current. The proposed maximal
electrostatic dipole lengths ‘inside’ nuclei, 10-11 meters per unit
length, are such that the positive and
negative poles exert almost equal but opposite forces on the free electrons in
the non conducting metal strip. But the
force between the dipoles on either side reduces to an inverse square force and
is stronger than the small difference in opposite inverse square forces between
the poles of the dipoles in the wires and the electrons in the non
conductive strip. Thus the movement of free electrons in the conductive -but
not current carrying- metal strip is negligible and does not cancel out the
force between the electrostatic dipoles on either side of the strip.
In ferromagnetic materials
etc, the magnetic field of electron spin and the magnetic field of an orbiting
charge are in combination
attributable to an electrostatic dipole inside the electron in
two mutually perpendicular directions transverse to, and perpendicular to, its
motion. More on this
below.
How does the polarization
inside atomic nuclei (and inside electrons) come about? We could have an orbiting charged particle
within the nuclei and free electrons of radius R=10-15 meters
approximately, that is of very small
mass, m*, and such that when added to the central mass and charge, the total charge and mass of the electron and
of the nucleus are as observed. When the sustained field, E,
acts on the free electrons, it also acts on this orbiting charge inside the
free electrons and inside the lattice nuclei. The result is an increase
in the orbital charge velocity analogous to the engine burn of rocket moved
from a circular to an elliptical orbit.
Also we require that free electrons have an
orbiting charged particle of charge, say -2e, and larger mass core of charge,
+e, and that the lattice nuclei have orbiting charged particles of charge, –e, and
a large mass core of charge, +2e. Or something similar so that parallel current
carrying wires will attract due to the similarly oriented dipoles inside the
electrons and inside the atomic nuclei. That is the field causing an elliptization of the negative orbital charge and so a
polarization of negative charge, in a specific direction will produce the same
polarization inside the nucleus and inside the free electron. Also an atomic nucleus and an inner orbital electron repel each
other if their orbiting negative charges are close enough. Thus the electron
orbit in hydrogen cannot become smaller than the half Angstrom ground orbit
with the negative orbiting charge around the electron being repelled by the
negative orbiting charge around the nucleus.
Of course such a model assumes
particles moving at supposedly impossible speeds. The answer to this is not “Tachyons”, but
rather that the apparent mass increase of Beta electrons, as in the original
experiments by Kaufmann and others, to infinity as the speed of light is
approached, is due to a decreasing rate of increase of the electrostatic
dipoles inside the speeding electrons and so a decreasing rate of increase of
the response to a magnetic field and to an electrostatic field through which the
electrons traveled. More
on this below.
From (1)the roughly 10-15
meter radius,R, of the nucleus and of the electron
and (2) The equal sustained fields, E, producing equal currents in parallel
wires r meters apart producing dipoles proportional to the distance apart and
to the current, “rneAv/c” -and so to, E:
We can infer the mass,m* = 10 -56 kg, of
the orbiting charge and the eccentricity, e, of the orbit needed to produce these dipole lengths,rv/c = e/(1-e) times 10-15 meters where e <.99999 so rv/c
< 10-10 meters. The argument is as follows:
The centripetal acceleration of
our proposed hypothetical system inside the electron and inside the nucleus is
m*v02/R
= 9(109)2e2/R2
implies v0 = [9(109)2e2/Rm*]1/2
= [(9)(2)(2.56)]1/2(10(9-38+15)/2) = (6.62)(10-7)/m*1/2
Is there another relation which would help in determining, m*? In the time between collisions, 10-14 seconds,
the sustained electric field,E, in the wire that produces the drift velocity
of the electrons also produces a transverse ellipse of eccentricity e, of the
orbital charge inside the atomic nuclei and the free electrons. The increase in
orbital velocity required for an ellipse of eccentricity e is
eEt/m* = v1- v0
= (1+ e)1/2v0 - v0 = (1+ e/2)v0 - v0 = v0e/2 = (e/2 )(6.62)(10-7)/m*1/2
This follows from the general
equation for an orbiting charged mass around an oppositely charged mass,
(mρ2)(v2/kρ) = 1+
ε cosα where k=9(109)e2.
and ρ is the distance from a stationary central
charged particle to a moving charged mass m etc.
And what also follows is that
the distance between the center of charge of the small orbiting mass,m*, and the
position of core mass of opposite charge of twice the magnitude can be written
in terms of the eccentricity as Re/(1-e) where we assume, R=10-15 meters.
Thus we can determine the
hypothetical orbiting mass, m*, from the electric field E associated with a
specific current carrying wire parallel to another such wire at a specific
distance and experiencing an attractive force proportional to the currents, F=
-9(109 )(rnAev/c)(rnAev*/c)dsds*/r4 = -10-7ii*dsds*/r2
For example, suppose our
parallel wires are r=2cm apart, of
copper with a 2mm diameter carrying a
current of one Amp so A=(3.14)(12)(10-3)2
and, following the standard
free electron model of current, 1= nAev =
(8.47)(3.14)(1.6)(1028-6-19)(v) = 4.255(104)(v); so v = (2.35)10-5 meters per
second, v = eEt/m = (2)(1.6)(10-19)( E)(10-14)
/(9)(10-31) if t=2(10-14) seconds, then the resistivity of copper is as observed, ρ = me/ne2t;
Thus E = 9(2.35)(
Note a larger value of
separation r, would imply a larger dipole for the same v and E, due to a lack
of interference from the transverse dipole field of the other wire. If the
dipole, rv/c was 10-10 meters say, then e = .99999 with
e/(1-e) = 105 = .99999/.00001
This could also happen with
drift velocity, v= 1 meter/sec and r=10-2 meters, so rv/c=10-10 would mean E=102V/meter
and the current would be 100 megaAmps and the
millimeter radius wire would break. But if the electron were moving in low
pressure gas, the density of electrons and current and time between collisions would be
less. For example suppose E = 104 V/meter and we have a proton whose
initial radius is 10-15 but is subject to this field for 10-7
seconds before a collision.
Thus the dipole could be fairly
large with a small or medium E field and an average drift velocity small enough so as not to break the
wire. The value of, e, might be slightly larger say .999 instead of
.7. This suggests a maximum value of E
of about 1V per meter for this velocity, v, in this wire and that our estimate
of, m*, based
on our example is reasonable although it could be one or two order of magnitudes greater or
less.
Since, from above, v0
=(6.62)(10-7)/m*1/2, we can solve for m*:
eEt/m*= (e/2 )(6.62)(10-7)/m*1/2
so eEt = (e/2 )(6.62)(10-7) (m*1/2),
so m*1/2 = (1.6)(6.62)(2)10-19-3-14/(.7/2)(6.62)10-7
= 9.11(10-29), so m*= 10-56
kg approximately. So v0
= (6.62)(10-7)/m*1/2 = 1021
meters/second, and the frequency f0 = 1021-(-15) = 1036
approximately.
Note that there is a second transverse
dipole perpendicular to both the first transverse dipole and to the
longitudinal current, but the repulsion between two similarly oriented such
dipoles that are parallel to each other, is half as great as the dipole
attraction of collinear dipoles and so there is a net attraction. See W.J. Duffin’s exceptional textbook, Electricity and
Magnetism. The following diagram from
his book shows the forces and torques between dipoles. One must imagine wavy
arrows perpendicular to the dipole arrows to be current carrying wire segments
to see the forces between current carrying segments: (kr/c)(nAev) where nAev
is the current per unit segment ds:
Since r in such tests is
typically a few centimeters and v is typically 10-5 to 10-3
meters/second, the dipole length, rv/c, is about 10-15 to 10 -13
meters, roughly the diameter of an
atomic nucleus to within the 1 to .1 Angstrom diameter of the inner shell of
electrons.
But as the distance between
parallel wires increases, the transverse dipole forces from each upon the other
decrease and so the dipole per unit length, rv/c can
increase-at least until other such forces and local forces prevent further
expansion of the dipoles beyond about .1
Angstrom. In these cases the dipoles are krv/c where
k is less than one.
The transverse dipole field
produced by a combination of such dipoles in one wire or a filament in the same
wire, makes the transverse elliptical
dipoles, formed in a second, parallel wire or filament, revert to a
wider circular, less elliptical, smaller dipole, shape,-- a magnetoresistance
effect; This is the same amount of resistance and time between
collisions, as with the greater current
measured by the magnetic effect in an ammeter when the transverse dipoles are
not inhibited by the transverse dipoles
in a nearby parallel wire etc..
The current and electron velocity, v, we measure is the net
result of the longitudinal field, E, the electron’s mass, m, and the combined effect of these transverse
dipoles and forces in reducing the times between collisions, t, as well as the
transverse dipole field that is a measure of the current. Thus if we consider three parallel current
carrying wires, the different dipoles associated with any of the three pairwise interactions are added together by the principle of electrostatic superposition to
give three unique dipoles at each of these locations and at any other location
a unique force.
Thus we can account for the so
called magnetic force between parallel(or otherwise oriented) current carrying
wires and the Pinch Effect of streams of electrons in a plasma as the
electrostatic force between electrostatic dipoles inside the lattice nuclei of
the wires or the electrons in the plasma.
At least until rv/c is no larger than the average distance between surrounding particles, eg
less than one or one tenth Angstrom inside a wire but larger in a plasma as
indicated by the average distance
between electrons and ions at atmospheric pressure or lower pressures.
Considering the force which produces elliptization of the orbital charge inside nuclei, assuming the different values of R observed, we find a relation between R and the so called speed of light. We take into account the central force projected on the X axis which acts half of the time in the same direction, half the time in the opposite direction as the exterior force (assumed to be acting along the X axis); thus:
F = qE±(9)(109)(2q2)/R2
(F)(x/R)
= qE±(9)(2) (2.56/2.4863)(10(9-38+30+15))x≈ qE±c2x,
q≈(1.6)10-19
and R=(2.486)10-15
That is, the speed of light
squared is the elasticity, usually denoted, ‘k’ , of charge polarization inside
atomic nuclei or inside electrons- if the
radius of orbiting charge inside
the proton or the electron is exactly
R=2.486 femtometers!
That is, the speed of light squared is a function of the electron radius and
charge and the electrostatic force constant, (9)(109). Note that the general equation for an elastic
system is –kx = mx”(t) which has the general solution x=Acos(2πft) where (2πft)2
= k/m. Here, m, is m*=
10-56 kg approximately. So v0
= (6.62)(10-7)/m*1/2 = 1021
meters/second, and the frequency f0 = 1021-(-15) = 1036
approximately. So we see that the speed of light squared is also the
product of the mass of the orbital particle inside atomic nuclei and inside
electrons times the square of this orbital frequency.
This orbital
radius is in the neighborhood of both the electron radius estimated from Xray scattering, 2.8fm, and the radius of the copper
nucleus, 4.7fm estimated from nucleus-neutron scattering and the estimation
formula R=1.1 (10 -15 )A1/3
, where A is the atomic mass
number. Some high energy electron electron scattering
experiments show Coulomb repulsion at separations of .2(10-15)
meters. If the electron's rest mass,
9.11(10-30)kg, is completely convertible into the potential energy,
(9)(109)e2 / R , then we obtain the classical
electron radius,
R = (9)(109)e2/mc2
= (2.824)10-15 meters.
Considering all of these nearly equal possible values for the radius of an actual orbiting mass inside the electron or inside the nucleus of a conductor, we will use, the value, R=2.48(10-15)., that makes the elasticity of the orbit equal to the ratio of, the electric force between unit charges, to, the magnetic force between unit currents, the so called, speed of light, squared.
The variation in the experimental values is evidence for an orbital system electron and nucleus in preference to a billiard ball or infinitesimal point charge electron etc.. It is also evidence of a relation between oscillating charge inside the nucleus and the so called speed of light.
We consider later in
discussing radio transmission, the interaction between a pair of parallel
oscillating current carrying wires where the current in one wire is much
weaker; e.g.,
milliamps to picoamps and the values
of, r, may be meters to kilometers to hundreds of kilometers and more. Thus the transverse dipole expansion in the
weaker current wire is inhibited initially by the transverse dipole field from
the other wire and the effect of the surrounding orbital electrons in the
weaker current wire is effective in reducing the dipole expansion from what it
would be otherwise, in the receiver wire.
The average or root mean
square oscillating dipoles inside atomic nuclei in these parallel oscillating currents
could be rv/c per unit length but due to the local effects of the surrounding
orbital electrons for large values of v, and r, rv/c
may be larger than .1 Angstrom and not permitted. We may have krv/c
= .1 Angstrom where k<1. For example, r =1018 meters and v=10-6 meters/second,
when the oscillation becomes detectable in the receiver, makes krv/c about k times 1018-6 -8 , so k
must be 10-15 or less so that krv/c = 10-11. That is, the radiation is received, not after
r/c = 1010 seconds but after kr/c = 10-15+18-8
or 10-5 seconds. This
received radiation consists of oscillations of rms
amplitude, krv/c,
equal to about .1 Angstrom, the upper limit. If the distance from the
source, r, is increased, then, krv/c will become .1
Angstrom sooner and detectable sooner than kr/c = 10-5
seconds.
Consider a much closer and much
weaker radiation source, r= 101 that produces a detectable
oscillation in the receiver of root mean squared velocity, v meters/second,
such that rv/c is at most .1 Angstrom. That is, v, can be as large as 10-4 meters per second
after 101-8 or 10-7 seconds.
Thus, the increasing amplitude of
oscillating dipoles, A(t)cos2πft, A(t)=QD(t)
inside the lattice nuclei of receiving antenna wires and of molecules of semiconductors and of cells of the eye
precede the detectable oscillation of free electrons in the receiving antenna
or the excitation of bound electrons from molecules of the eye or of a photodiode or CCD array of pixels or other photoemissive surface.
The delay before radiation is
detectable at a distance r, from the
source - when the intensity at the receiver is sufficiently weak-after r/c seconds- can be kr/c seconds,
where k is smaller than 1. Below we show that the
supposed evidence for light speed of 186,283 miles per second at distances
beyond 200 miles is not as unambiguous as commonly believed. For example radar reflections from the moon
and planets from a continuously sending and receiving transceiver could be
radar returns from emissions just before reception and much later than the supposed
emissions. The GPS satellites at distances of 12000 miles etc.use
a matching of repeated millisecond long codes with a replica code in the receiver
so that differences in distance of up to only 180 miles can be detected etc..
Why does such charge
polarization with its magnetic effects not occur in dielectric strips subject
to an electric field? Because the
loosely bound electrons around atomic nuclei in these dieletrics,
redistribute themselves,
to cancel the effects of the outside electric field on the
central nuclei. The dielectric as a
whole becomes polarized opposite to the applied field.
But if the applied field is
constantly changing, then the nuclei of dielectrics have a chance to respond to
the applied field before the surrounding electrons can completely cancel the
changing applied field. The result of
each change in force will be a small amount of charge polarization transverse
to the force or force change.
This in fact happens all the
time as the Earth spins. As the Earth
spins on its axis (.465m/s and orbits the Sun, (29.9m./s) and with the Sun
orbits the Galactic center 1020 meters away at (220m./s) etc, the
motion of the Earth’s atoms implies constantly changing forces. These
mechanical forces were initially ultimately electrical on the Earth’s
predominantly dielectric atoms, eg, silica, and
oxygen, and so produced a small amount of charge polarization in these atomic
nuclei each time the tangential velocity change direction. (That mechanical
forces are ultimately electrical, is seen from the example of two
colliding billiard balls and the electrical nature of the constituent atoms.)
As the Earth turns, the centripetal
force due to the initially created radial collinear dipoles that attract each
other is at any point , perpendicular to a tangent line is at a slight angle to
a subsequent tangent line and thus has a non zero component projection on this
subsequent tangent line. And this tangential dipole force produces radial
oriented dipoles along a subsequent radial line from the Earth’s center to this
subsequent tangent line. And in this way the radial and longitudinal dipoles
are sustained.
Another possible mechanism to
account for the radially and longitudinally oriented
dipoles: The initial force that caused
the rotation and after, sustained by inertia, was tangential along a west to
east line of latitude and thus perpendicular to a radial line to the Earth’s
center and to a north south or longitudinal line. The radial and longitudinal
dipoles initially produced, cause collinear attraction along radial and
longitudinal lines etc and in combination, produce forces on protons without
dipoles, that cause dipoles transverse to the radial dipoles and transverse to the longitudinal dipoles.
That is new radial, longitudinal and latitudinal or tangential dipoles are
continually produced
Thus it is possible than an uncancelled electric field, Erot , exists
inside the average dielectric atom of average duration, τ, that, due to
this time limitation and not just
surrounding electrical forces, produces
an elliptical extension of orbital charge inside the protons of eccentricity, e. The increase in orbital velocity is eErotτ/m* =
eErotτ/10-56
= (e/2)v0
where v0 = [9(109)2e2/Rm*]1/2 = 1021. and
the dipole is Re/(1-e) where e= 2v0eErotτ/m* where v0 = [9(109)2e2/Rm*]1/2 and m*=10-56.
For example, if the produced dipole length is s=10-18, then Re/(1-e)
=10-18, so with R= 10-15, e= 10-3
about.
The electrical
force and duration, eErotτ,
producing dipoles is proportional to
the force or torque that produced the
spin angular momentum of the Earth:
eErot = K MEvrot2/rE =
where ME =
[5.98(1024] and vrot2/rE
= [465]2/[(6.37)(106)]. So Erotτ = 2.03(104)K
volts/meter times τ..
The duration may be inversely proportional to the 24 hour period as a measure
of how rapidly the tangent lines change direction.
The net result is the existence of collinear similarly and so
attractively oriented electrostatic dipoles along the Earth’s radii and along
lines of longitude with parallel longitudinal dipoles repelling.
Thus a magnetized steel compass needle is pulled downward and made of
line up with lines of longitude. The Earth’s magnetic field and that of other
planets is thus accounted for. The magnetic field is just the gravitational
field measured by magnetic measuring instruments.
IS GRAVITY ULTIMATELY
ELECTROSTATIC?
Thus the gravitational force
of the Earth on terrestrial objects is attributable to charge polarization
inside their atomic nuclei transverse to the direction of the Earth’s spin, ie along an Earth’s radius and along a line of longitude.
Similarly for the Sun on planets and galactic center to the Sun. Etc..
The inverse square gravitational
force is equivalent to an inverse fourth power electrostatic dipole-dipole
force if the dipoles in any pairwise interaction are
proportional also to the distance between the dipoles. Thus adjacent objects
along a radius toward the Earth’s center, attract.
Objects on adjacent longitudes repel.
But the total force on any object is the sum total of all such pairwise forces. The influence of more distant dipoles on
any given dipole is obviously less than the nearer dipoles and the expansion of
the dipole lengths at increasing distance, rs, is
subject to the restriction that, rs, is less than the
distance between atoms or, in a plasma, between ions and electrons.,
that is, krs, where k is less than 1.
Thus 9(109) times ers times Ners divided by r4
is the force between a radially oriented dipole on
the surface of the Earth and all of the N dipoles of the earth represented by a
net dipole, also radially oriented, at the center of
the Earth.
As an estimate of the size of
the electrostatic dipoles in the Earth’s nuclei that account for gravity,
consider the force between two Hydrogen nuclei or protons one meter apart,
[(1.67)(10-27)]2[(6.67)(10-11)], using Cavendish’s coefficient and set it
equal to the dipole-dipole force between dipoles of unspecified length,”s”, to determine this length: We can then solve for the dipole length, s.
[(1.67)(10-27)]2[(6.67)(10-11)]
= (9)(109)[(1.602)(10-19)(s)]2, implies
s=.9((10-18) meters. But we have not taken into account the half as
strong repelling force between the parallel dipoles perpendicular to the
collinear dipoles. Thus the needed dipole is twice this or 1.8(10-18).
If the protons or
electrostatic dipoles were two meters apart then they would interfere less with
each other and dipoles could expand further but not more than permitted by
other limiting factors such other electrical forces within the molecules
containing the protons or the duration of the force associated with the spin of
the Earth. That is, the dipole would be twice as large when considering just
this pairwise interaction.
Consider the Newtonian force between one
proton, ie Hydrogen nucleus, mH
= [(1.67)(10-27)] and
the mass of the Earth assumed
concentrated at the center represented
as GMEmH/ [(6.37)(106)]2 = ((6.67)(5.98)(1.67)/(6.37))10-11+24-27-12
= (10.5)(10-26) Newtons.
Could we
similarly represent the force between the dipole “es”
and a concentration at the Earth’s
center of all of the Earth’s nuclear dipole components along a radial line to
the Earth’s center that are similarly oriented?
There are 6.02 times 1026 atoms in a volume of
any atom whose mass in kg is the total
of the protons and neutrons in the atom; e.g., 28kg of silicon contains 6.02
times 1026 atoms, so the Earth has (5.98 times 1024)/28
times 6.02 times 1026 atoms
and each of these times 28 (=
14protons plus 14 neutrons) yields 3.6 times 1051 dipoles. Hence whatever the average atom, the force between these dipoles concentrated at a point RE
meters from the surface and a single dipole at the Earth's surface is
(9)(109)(3.6)(1051) times [(6.37)(106)(1.6)(10-19)(1.8)(10-18)]2
divided by [(6.37)(106)]4 =
((9*3.6*1.44*1.44*3.24)/42.28)(109+51-38-36-12)
= (5.14(10-26))
This implies
the dipole in the proton vis a vis
the composite dipole at the Earth’s center is 10-12 meters which is
smaller than the .1 Angstrom upper limit due to the surrounding atoms etc..
Consider the much repeated
Cavendish experiment eg by Boys showing the horizontal gravitational force
between a pair of small 2g. gold balls at the ends of
wooden arm held in the center by a wire suspended from a fixed point where the
small balls were .3 meters from two larger fixed 8kg. lead
balls? If the arm was placed along an
East West line, the up down collinear dipoles would be attracted downward while
the north south oriented electrostatic
dipoles inside the atomic nuclei of the balls would be in an attractive
collinear north south alignment and the slight twist of the wire shows the
observed roughly 10-7Newton
force. If the arm was placed along a
north south line the orientation of the electrostatic dipoles in adjacent balls
of each pair would be in a parallel repelling alignment and there would be no
collinear attractive dipoles. An intermediate placement of the arm would show
the effect of collinear attractive force components and parallel repelling
forces. The sum of these effects are generally
attractive because repelling parallel dipole forces are half as strong as
collinear dipoles forces for the same size dipole.
This, not a fifth force,
explains the gravitational repulsion observed by Fishbach,
Sudarsky, Szafer, Talmadge,
and Aronson, in “Reanalysis of the Eotvos
experiment” (Phys Rev Lett.,v56,p3,6,1,1986).
Eotvos’s measured the pull of a weight when the weight
and the spring holding it were moving
eastward in a boat on the
The unexpectedly small
gravitational effect of the largest mass on the Earth, the
Similarly we can show the gravitational attraction of the planets to the
Sun may be
represented in terms of electrostatic dipoles.
(Note the planet masses from Mercury to Pluto
are multiples of 1024kg. namely, .22, 4.87, 5.97, .64, 1899.7,
568.8, 86.9, 103.0, and .013 times 1024kg vs
the Sun’s(2)(1030)kg. Note the distance between the Sun and Mercury
through Pluto is .58 , 1.0728, 1.49, 2.235, 7.748,
14.155, 28.608, 44.849 and 58.855 times 1011 meters). The distance between the Sun and the Galactic
center is 104 parsecs = 3(1020) meters.
The Sun is
.92H+..08He; a
kg of
H contains 6.02 times 1026
molecules each of which contains one proton and 4kg of He contains 6.02 times
1026 molecules. So 1kg of He
contains (6.02/4)(1026) molecules each of which contains 2 neutrons and 2 protons.
Thus an average Sun kg contains .92 times 6.02 times 1026
protons-neutrons plus .08 times 4
‘protons-neutrons’ times Ľ of 6.02 times 1026. We multiply this sum times the mass of the
Sun in kilograms to obtain the total number of ‘protons-neutrons’ in the Sun: 6.02
times 1026 times (.92+.08) times 2(1030) kg in
the Sun.
Hence, whatever the atoms, the Sun contains 6.02 times 1026
times M or 1.2 times 1057 protons-neutrons and each of these
contains a dipole, esSun ,
oriented along a line from the Sun to the Earth perpendicular to the tangents
of the orbital motion of the Earth and
to the tangents of the spin direction of
the Sun.
Similarly there are 6.02(1026) times 5.98(1024)kg =
41.3(1050) =4.1(1051) protons-neutrons each containing a
dipole, esEarth , in the Earth.
The attraction between the net dipoles in the Sun and Earth is [9(2.56)(109)(10-38)][6.02(1026)]2
[Mm/R2][1/R2] RsEarth
RsSun =GMm/R2= 8.35(109-38+52+2)
[Mm/R2] sEarth sSun .
Cancelling
Mm/R2 on both sides G= 6.67(10-11) =8.35(109-38+52+2)
sEarth sSun = 8.35(1026) sEarth sSun
. So sEarth sSun = (6.67/8.35)10-35
=7.5(10-36).
Thus if sEarth
=10-22 so that RsEarth =
10-11 as the dipole length pointing to the Sun, then, RsSun
= 1011-14 which sounds impossible.
Another possibility is as follows: In
short, there is a greater difference of charge at the opposite poles of the
average dipole in
the Sun, so that the product of charge
times dipole length is consistent with the average density of protons in the
Sun: The density of atoms or protons on the surface of the Sun, a tenth of gram
per cubic centimeter implies an average separation distance of about 10-7
meters. So an average millimeter dipole length could not be produced inside the
protons and electrons even if the orbital systems inside them could expand to
this size. However if the average dipole length was 10-7 meters and
there was greater charge being separated inside the protons, for example,
minus ‘104e’ on one pole and
plus ‘e’ on the other where,
‘-e’, is the charge of an electron, then
such dipoles could account for the gravitational force of the Sun on a planet.
The extreme
temperatures of the Sun and the forces producing the 220 km/sec orbital
velocity of the Sun as well as its 2km/sec spin velocity could produce
excitation of negative charges inside the proton, which, on the Earth, are not
excited. If the proton consisted of 1836 positron type particles of the mass of
the electron and charge of the proton and 1835 orbiting particles of the charge
of the electron and mass 10-56kg and
less in concentric circular orbits, then dipoles of approximately 104e
would be produced.
Similarly for
the attraction of the Sun to the galactic center but the proton may divisible
into even smaller parts if the density of the center is not small enough to
allow sufficient extension of the dipole length.
ZOLLNER,
BLACKETT,AND
WESSON
Here is some of the historical background to the electrostatic dipole theory of gravity:
“Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon, There is no primary motion inherent in planets and satellites. Electric attraction, repulsion, and electromagnetic circumduction govern their movements….Each atom is made up of positive and negative electricity and though neutral as a whole may form an electric dipole when subject to an electric force. Thus in the theory presented here, this attraction is not due to “inherent gravitational” properties of mass but instead to the well known electrical properties of attraction. Two dipoles arrange themselves so that the attraction is stronger than their mutual repulsion” We are to conclude that a pair of electrical particles of opposite sighns, ie two Weberian molecular pairs attract each other. This attraction is Gravity; it is proportional to the total number of molecular pairs” from Explanation of Universal Gravitation through the Static Action of Electricity” F.Zollner, 1882
P.M.S. Blackett In the May
17, 1947 issue of Nature writes of the Magnetic Field of Massive Rotating
Bodies: “It has been known for a long time, particularly from the work of
Schuster, Sutherland and H.A. Wilson, though lately little regarded, that the
magnetic moment P and the angular momentum U of the Earth and Sun [and then
recently the star 78 Virginis] are nearly
proportional, and that the constant of proportionality is nearly the square
root of the gravitational constant, G, divided by the speed of light ,c.”
Blackett first
noticed this while considering the influence of
the magnetic field of stars on cosmic ray activity. The importance of cosmic rays and magnetic field disturbances on
communications and radar surveillance during World War Two stimulated interest
in these matters. But prior to this time and even now the regard of
geologists and astronomers for this relationship was and is surprisingly
indifferent and it does not appear even in their texts or recent general
physics texts that I have seen. Blackett suggested a laboratory test using a bronze sphere of 1 meter diameter rotating at 100 r.p.s. which should give a field of about 10-8Gauss,
which modern devices like the SQUID for measuring weak magnetic fields
could reveal and perhaps already has. T.Gold
in a later issue (April 2, 1949) of Nature represents the opinions of Runcorn and Hoyle that the difficulty in
entertaining the hypothesis was that there was “no physical quantity which
might be related, by way of a new law, to the magnetism of large rotating
bodies.” [But now there is: radially and
longitudinally oriented electrostatic dipoles in their
atomic nuclei is the unknown missing quantity. The
greater the mass, ie the greater the number of
protons, neutrons and electrons, all of which contain electrostatic dipoles and
the greater the tangential velocity, the greater the length of each dipole.
The counter clockwise orbit produces a tangential force on an orbiting -2e
charge in electrons and on a –e orbiting charge in protons that produces an
expansion of the dipoles in the same radial direction with the negative charge
pointing to the center.(if clockwise with positive charge pointing to the
center]
Blackett references Hale, Theissen,
and Babcock
measurements of the Zeeman splitting
indicative of a magnetic field acting on the
spectra of light from different parts of the sun. Later such
measurements give values due to the 450km/sec emissions of positive ions and
electrons from sunspots etc and other such flows as well as the field due to
the 2km/sec rotation of the sun so there is some confusion. That is the local
fields associated with sunspots spread out over the suns surface that reverse
every 11 years may also influence the measurement Babcock made later of the
reversal at the poles which otherwise would imply under Blackett’s
theory, an unobserved rotation reversal.
Because of
the problems with Zeeman splitting measurements of
the magnetic fields of stars and the sun, the main support for Blackett’s theory is the evidence of electrostatic dipoles
inside current carrying wires and inside their free electrons and atomic nuclei
as the cause of their magnetic fields and the implication of such dipoles in
spinning orbiting masses.
Also there
are ambiguities with space probe measurements of planetary magnetic fields that
NASA hopes to resolve
with the Russian and Austrian proposal to use a hot air balloon a few km above
the surface of Mars. A possible explanation of the lack of correspondence
between space probe measured planetary magnetic fields and planetary angular momenta is that the probes are magnetometers being
influenced by the space probe velocity relative to the planet velocity.
A related phenomenon might be the
following (from the New Scientist ( p485): “In one [of Henry Wallace’s-US patent 3 626 605]
kinemassic machines a pair of wheels of brass alloy,
like gyroscopes are rotated at a speed of 20,000/60 r.p.s.
[and then at the same time] rotated about another axis [at some unspecified
speed]... [the wheels appear to be propelled upward or become lighter]” I am
told but I do not have the references that other evidence of gravitational
anomalies of spinning objects has been obtained by DePalma,
Kidd, Strachan, and Laithewaite.
The Hyzer angle of frisbees
and sinker pitches in baseball also may be related
phenomena.
Thus any accelerated object, eg a bullet, a rocket,
a plane, a car, a frisbee, a skidding or spinning
billiard ball etc has electrostatic dipoles produced in its atomic nuclei
transverse to and proportional to the accelerating force which even if
mechanical is still ultimately electrostatic; The tendency of linearly
propelled atomic nuclei to then rotate may add to the aerodynamic
efficiency of spinning projectiles. The resulting dipole field may or may not
be self sustaining against thermal disturbances as in the dipole chain
model of ferroelectrics (Feynman v2p5-5, 11-10).
In the above mentioned ferroelectric
model the dipoles are assumed to be composed of poles, concentrations of
charge, that are fairly constant over time unlike our model of charge
polarization inside atomic nuclei which changes rapidly with the position of
the orbiting charged particle(s) inside the nuclei but which averaged over the
orbital time period represents a displacement of centers of negative and positive
charge in a specific direction. In both
models the dipole-dipole interaction is the same but the interaction of one
dipole with a single pole of the other is different in the two
models.
In our model the action of one dipole on
the single pole of another is to produce a transverse elliptical motion of the
single pole, rather than as in the ferroelectric model to produce a motion of
the pole only in the direction of the dipole field and thereby to sustain a
dipole field.
P.S. Wesson in Phys Rev D v23 p1730
(1981) derives a relation similar to the one of Wilson
that Blackett describes, namely that the
angular momentum of planets stars and galaxies divided by the square of their
masses is approximately constant and equal to 10-17 meters per
sec per kilogram. This suggests a common centrifugal or tangential
acceleration from zero, a common force, associated perhaps, in analogy to
other forces, with an agent, with a Prime Mover.
Returning to the Blackett and
In the case of the planets, measurements
of their magnetic fields is complicated by the fact that different parts and
layers of the Sun and gaseous planets rotate at different velocities and
for the planets near the Sun, the Sun’s magnetic field has an influence
on the measurements. The fact that the gaseous planet Jupiter has a magnetic
field ten times stronger many miles above its equator suggesting a field at the
surface, 20,000 times that of the Earth even
though it is only several hundred times larger in mass and spinning only
30 times faster and the fact that the direction of the field is opposite to its
surface rotation is perhaps understandable in terms of different
directions of rotation in different regions and the added magnetic fields of
electric currents.
Also the similarity of Uranus to Jupiter
except that is about one twentieth of the mass of Jupiter and the similar ratio
of their magnetic fields to the ratio of their masses can be so understood.
RELATIVITY
AND CHARGE POLARIZATION
INSIDE ATOMIC NUCLEI
Regarding the gravitational red shifts
and bending of electromagnetic radiation. Before
considering the esoteric experiments, consider the commonplace observation of
improvement in the reception of radio frequencies at night from reception
during the day. This is attributed to greater radio activity ie interference during the day but it could also be
attributed in part to a decrease in the distance between colliding free
electrons and lattice ions, nuclei and their surrounding electron shells in the
receiver antennas when the antenna is on the sunny side of the Earth.
That is, as
we hypothesized above, the side of the Earth nearest the Sun is more attracted
to the Sun but also because of the added Sun tracking dipole in the atomic
nuclei, in the same direction as the dipole associated with the planet’s spin,
both having their positive pole toward the Sun, the atoms of the Earth nearest
the Sun are more attracted to each other than to atoms on the dark side of the
Earth. On the dark side, the Sun tracking and Earth center tracking
dipoles are in opposite directions.
When a star is observed against the
background of stars at say midnight its position seems to be about 3/3600
degrees ahead of its position when its position is determined at the time of
year it is visible during an eclipse near the Sun at noon; that is the greater
residual nuclear dipole seems to make possible a difference in the delay of
reception; a longer delay as the Earth turns more before light from the particular
star becomes visible. And this effect is greater, the less the angle
between the radial orientation of the dipoles. That is the proposed theory
explains the bending of light, by gravity without requiring a distortion in the
three dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, according to Einstein's
ingenious formula, representing physical space far beyond
ordinary observations.
What about gravitational lensing; quasars viewed on different sides of a large
distant star or galaxy. The red shift of the quasars is about the same with an
error that translates into thousands of meters
per second. Can we simply say, to please the
General Relativity departments and the Black Hole sub departments, that this is
evidence of a single quasar whose light is bent by a large mass as it passes by
the large mass on the way to Earth?
A better case could be made if
there was clear evidence, but there isn’t, that stars or quasars as near each other as those in claimed instances of
gravitational lensing but without a closer stellar
object blocking their view from the Earth had more dissimilar red shifts. The
difficulty, if not impossibility of making a conclusive case of this sort
reduces the claim to idle speculation.
A similar explanation applies to
the red shift in radar reflections from Venus and Mercury when they are on the
opposite side of the Sun; that is the gravitational effect of the Sun is not to
change the time scale of light wave disturbances in the aether
near the Sun so as to increase the time between successive peaks and valleys of
a sine oscillation but to influence the radar receiving antennas on the Earth
so that they do not respond as quickly to changes in oscillating forces on the
free electrons in their antennas resulting in a lower frequency for the
received oscillation of charge in the radar antenna.
Similarly for other red shift experiments like Brault's
on the gravitational red shift of solar lines (Bull Amer
Phys Soc. 8,28 1963). The red shift of gamma rays as a function of their height,
22.5 meters above the Earth's surface and the gravitational field of the Earth
may have a similar explanation. That is the shift should be greater the greater
the distance between the source and the receiver at least during the day; if
the experiment is performed at night the results should be a lesser delay.
But the cause of the delay is not
the gravitational field of the Earth but the effect of the Sun’s gravitational
field on the Earth's gravitational field. Recent variations in the
gravitational constant when electrostatic means are used to create stability in
balance measurements also may be explained more clearly in terms of these
effects than in terms of General Relativity
Regarding Special Relativity which
in 1905 helped to explain the Michelson Morely
Experiment and Kaufmann’s mass increase experiment and later was used to
explain the faster decay time of faster moving muons,
the apparent mass increase of
accelerated protons as in the
Cockroft Walton and modern accelerator
experiments, relativistic corrections to high velocity Doppler shifts and the
1971 Hafele Keating experiment.showing
clocks running slower in fast moving planes.
We have shown that by attributing light’s
delay to effects inside the atomic nuclei of the receiver we avoid the need for
an aether and its different effects on the first
light ray moving with the Earth and the light
ray moving perpendicular to the first. We have also showed how charge
polarization inside a beta electron causes a decrease in the rate of increasing
magnetic responsiveness of the fast moving beta electron which is wrongly
interpreted as an increase in inertial mass. We have suggested how the same principle
is at work in the case of the the Cockroft
Walton experiment, and the faster moving muons. And so when unstable particles like pions, muons,
kaons etc are made to move at .98 times the speed of
light, the muons(209
times the mass of the electron) for example decay five times slower than they
do when they are at rest. The force which produces the increase in speed can act on the
orbiting charged particle or particles within the larger muon increasing charge polarization
transverse to the velocity disrupting
the particular balance of forces in the muon at rest
or lesser velocities associated with a
more rapid decay time. Also the increased pull of the Earth’s gravitational
(electrostatic dipole) field on the muon with an
increased average electrostatic dipole can help ncrease
the delay time of the muon..
Similarly in the Haefele
Keating experiment, the forces that propel the eastward and westward moving
planes produce an increase in the negative elliptization
along an Earth radial toward the center of the Earth in the nuclear dipole of
Cesium when eastward and a negative elliptization away from the center of the Earth when moving
westward. Thus a slower speed indicated by the heavier Cesium molecule in the
400mph plane moving eastward. So when the plane returns to the point of
takeoff, the Cesium clock on the plane is 275 nanoseconds slower the Cesium
clock that remained on the Earth. When the plane moves
westward, the Cesium clock gains 59 seconds on the Cesium clock that remained
on the Earth. Thus the Lorentz formula is
applicable but to mass rather than time and we have showed that Lorentz is describing charge polarization inside atomic
nuclei not mass time or space.
The same
effect could be measured in terms of the less than expected increased speed of
a plane per unit fuel used as the plane moves with the spin of the Earth
eastward. When the plane takes off into the west- to-east-blowing, prevailing
westerly wind, it is moving also against the 465meter per second spin of the
Earth but it is somewhat lighter because of the reduced electrostatic dipole
and the reduced attraction to the Earth associated with the net force pushng it westward. Then as it reverses direction and
becomes slightly heavier but
with tailwinds from the prevailing westerlies
it moves at the sum of the speed of the
plane and the speed of the wind,vpl +
vwind . As it moves around the world from
west to east the world is spinning in the opposite direction at about 800 mph
at 40 degree latitude etc so subtracting this speed from the distance from vpl
+ vwind we have the formula for the duration of the
trip from which we can compute the plane speed vpl
, and the speed per gallon of gas. This should be the same for the plane
moving in the opposite direction so long as the Pitot
tube type measurements of wind speed in both directions are accurate.
DIAMAGNETISM AND FERROMAGNETISM
The greater so called magnetic field produced by magnets,
ferromagnetic materials, eg iron, cobalt and nickel,
all of which have two electrons in their
outermost orbits, has a cause which involves this electron pair but diamagnetic
atoms and molecules also have two or an
even number of electrons in their outer orbits.
It is helpful to first explain
the cause of diamagnetism. The slight repulsion of copper, gold, graphite and
dielectrics such as
diamonds, plastic, water etc when brought near a magnetic pole
suggests the pairs or even numbers of
orbital electrons in the diamagnetic atoms or molecules are made to
orient themselves so that they are made
to move by the changing “magnetic” or
electrostatic dipole field, in the opposite direction of those in the current
carrying coil equivalent of the magnetic pole.
Then the net transverse
electrostatic dipole of the orbital electrons repels the net electrostatic dipole we
call the magnetic pole. Note the field
of a magnetic pole varies as the inverse cube of distance as does the field of
an electrostatic dipole.
Consider the circular atomic
orbit in the horizontal plane where say two diametrically opposed electrons are moving in a counterclockwise direction as we
look down on their orbit. The moving force on the right side creates
an elliptical extension to the left of the negatively counterclockwise orbiting
particle inside the electron creating a negative pole of the dipole inside the
electron pointing toward the atomic nucleus.
Similarly for the electron on the left side.
And this is true for all diametrically opposite positions of the two electrons.
If the orbital movement is clockwise the elliptical extension of the electron ie of the negatively orbiting particle inside it, is away
from the nucleus; so the positive pole of the electron’s electrostatic dipole
is facing the nucleus.
Thus the net electrostatic
dipole field at a Point on a line passing through the center of the atomic electron orbit and above the
horizontal plane of the orbit, has, for the counterclockwise electron
orbit, a projection of the center directed dipole field, with the
negative pole pointing upward.
The force between the dipole
in the electron and the net electrostatic dipole due to a magnetic pole placed
at the Point, directed along the line joining the electron and the Point, is
the force between the dipole in the electron and the net electrostatic dipole
due to a magnetic pole above the electron orbit.
This explains the repelling
force between the orbital electrons of a diamagnetic dielectric and a magnet
due to the changing magnetic field acting on the orbital electrons.(For a
clockwise electron orbit, the positive pole is pointing upward.)
If the magnetic field is
unchanging then the orientations of the electron orbitals
are random and there is no net electrostatic dipole arising from the orbital
electrons.
We should perhaps mention the
effects of charge polarization inside the protons of (diamagnetic) water molecules
subject to a constant magnetic field as in nuclear magnetic resonance.
The magnetic dipoles of
protons and other nuclei and the magnetic dipole of the applied constant
magnetic field are net electrostatic dipoles. The orientation of the
electrostatic dipoles in the protons of water are according to the standard
theory randomly oriented but we have shown that there is a residual amount(10-18)
meters of charge polarization determined
by and lining up with the longitudinal dipoles of the
spinning of the Earth etc.. The effect of the applied magnetic (net
electrostatic dipole) field is to produce a small re-orientation of these dipoles to
line up somewhat with the strong applied field. The precession of these dipoles
at microwave frequencies and the detection of this with the help of pulses of a
resonant frequency are used in magnetic resonance imaging.
A magnetized ferromagnet or a current carrying coil producing a strong
field, ie a strong electrostatic dipole field, when
brought near unmagnetized ferromagnet
material will not induce an opposite current as in diamagnetic materials but
rather act as a net dipole rotating all the net electrostatic dipoles of each
domain to line up in a similar way and attract the net net
electrostatic dipole of the other ferromagnetic material. The Heisenberg theory
is that adjacent atoms in the molecules of such materials have their electron
orbits exert a stronger force on each other than those in diamagnetic
materials.
So instead of a random
arrangement of the net electrostatic dipoles of each atom and so a zero net net dipole, adjacent atoms have similarly oriented net
dipoles. Thus the counter clockwise orbits are the same in adjacent atoms
within a region (domain) of the material.
We see from the above
description of how electrostatic dipoles in pairs of orbiting electrons produce
an electrostatic dipole field, that a single orbiting electron will produce
opposite fields in diametrically opposite positions at different times and so a zero average electrostatic
dipole field. So the induction of a current in the opposite direction by having
the electron orbits orient themselves accordingly has no repulsive effect and
no attractive effect.
It is possible that the molecular combination of
atoms with single orbiting electrons in combined atoms will have a greater than
zero average electrostatic dipole field and act as a net electrostatic
dipole. In this explanation, the
electrostatic dipoles in orbiting electrons, ie their
magnetic properties, are produced solely by the orbital movement of the
electrons and not also by the spin of the electron.
That Gravity is ultimately
electrostatic is related to the views proposed by V.A. Bailey and also those of Thornhill and Scott.
Bailey claimed that the Sun had a large net electric charge at the same
time that authorities at Harvard vehemently denied it. The net charge was
finally measured by NASA space probes. Thornhill and Scott claim that the power of the Sun and
stars are provided wholly or in part by plasma currents or the solar wind
comprised of positive Helium and Hydrogen ions moving away from the Sun and a
smaller number of electrons moving toward the Sun but a net positive flow of
charge toward the edge of the solar system implying for unexplained reasons a more negative potential in this region. Other
explanations of the solar wind are that electrons and positive ions are present
in equal numbers and are pushed out of the Sun by heat and pressure factors at up to
450km/second but are not close enough to recombine. And that they continue by
inertia past the Earth unless captured by oppositely charged particles are
deflected by other sources of
magnetic and electric fields, to the edge of the solar system etc.. It is helpful to
consider the magnetic fields of the plasma streams as due to charge
polarization inside the ions and electrons transverse to the direction of the streams.
The magnetic field of moving charges in
the Sun is added to the magnetic field associated with the 24.7 day rotation of
the Sun. The magnetic field due to electrostatic dipoles associated with the
Sun’s rotation and with the moving charges of plasma streams influence
radiation emitted by Sunspots on the Sun’s photosphere. Specifically the line
of an observed frequency is split into many closely spaced lines showing that
the field there is thousands of times stronger than that of the Earth. Also
that the first spot in the direction of the Sun’s spinning has the opposite
polarity of that in a nearby spot that comes next into view. That is the
excitation from one orbit to another of the
electrons emitting light is inhibited or stimulated by the surrounding,
so called, magnetic field depending on its orientation.
Knowing the mass and number
of atoms or ions in the Sun, we can estimate the gravitational field of the Sun
and so the equivalent magnetic or electrostatic dipole field of the Sun not due
to the solar currents. That is the electrostatic dipole field of the Sun is the
gravitational field of the Sun and the magnetic field of the Sun independent of
the magnetic or electrostatic dipole field associated with the plasma stream of
positive ions and electrons of the solar wind.
LIGHT
SPEED & OSCILLATING CHARGE INSIDE ELECTRONS AND ATOMIC NUCLEI
Since Maxwell’s 1864 paper, the theory of
Light has involved ever stranger, more non intuitive assumptions: eg
a vacuous space filled with invisible
wheels and ball bearings, like vortices in a gas, but utterly massless- and with the density of iron! Later, massless,
even probabilistic particles(photons) transferring
discontinuous changes in energy, time dilation, space contraction and
curvature, one dimensional
objects(‘strings)’ vibrating in 10 dimensions, etc.. The continual
addition of properties of
light carrying particles
and of the space or spacetime continuum between
source and receiver, is reminiscent of the ever increasing number of Ptolemaic
epicycles that were added to explain planetary motions. The Ptolemaic theory
which was intended to reduce and simplify the chaos of raw data, became as
extensive as the raw data - until the incorrect assumption of a central Earth
was replaced with the correct premise of a central Sun.
A similar correction to the
theory of Light and electromagnetic radiation is long overdue.
The reason, initially, for the
non intuitive assumptions about light was the greater difficulty in conceiving
of cumulative instantaneous forces acting over unbelievably large distances,
and of masses,
volumes and sequences of velocities and
accelerations involved in these great forces, occurring over time scales and
space scales that, then, were
inconceivably small and beyond the scope of
the then available technology.
More recent discoveries have
led to the discovery of measurements of smaller and smaller time and space
scales. Particularly measurements of charge polarization
inside electrons and atomic nuclei from high energy proton-proton collisions.
And at the other extreme
measurements of unexpectedly
greater astronomical distances and energies of the more distant galaxies and
stars.
Thus, the mass of electrons
increasing to infinity as their velocity increased to the speed of light, can
be attributed to changes in charge polarizations inside the electron as its
mass increases, causing a decrease in the rate of increase of magnetic and
electric responsiveness of the electron.
(The reason this was not
considered originally as that it was easier to explain the response of the
electron, by
‘one’ thing, the mass, instead of ‘two’ things, the magnetic property and the
electric property of the moving electron.
The success of the space contraction and time dilation formula that Lorentz proposed and Einstein developed into
the theory of Relativity, to explain the
Michelson Morely experiment, also could explain this
mass increase. The idea of mass increase and the conversion of energy into mass and
mass into energy helped later to
describe radioactivity and the technology of fission bombs and fission power
plants. But now, knowing the magnetic
property is an electrostatic property, specifically an electrostatic
property, acknowledging the causes of
such apparent mass energy conversion, can improve the theory and improve
solutions to practical problems like
that of nuclear waste etc..)
An implication of charge
polarization inside electrons and atomic nuclei is that the so called speed of
light or rather the delay in the response of a radiation receiver to radiation
from a radiation emitter could be due to prior unobservable changes in charge
polarization inside the electrons and atomic nuclei of the receiver resulting
from rapidly changing instantaneous electrostatic forces from the emitter.
(Note, the attraction between parallel dc currents r meters apart can be
represented as the force between collinear electrostatic dipoles krev/c per unit length but less than .1 Angstrom where c is
31/2 times the speed of light,
and that orbital systems inside atomic nuclei can account for these
dipoles.
(We require that free electrons
have an orbiting charged particle of charge -2e and larger mass core of charge,
+e, and that the lattice nuclei have orbiting charged particles of charge –e
and a large mass core of charge +2e. Or
something similar so that parallel current carrying wires will attract due to
the similarly oriented dipoles inside the electrons and inside the atomic
nuclei. Also an atomic nucleus and an
inner orbital electron
repel each other if their orbiting negative charges are close
enough even if the center of positive charge of the orbital electron is closer
to the nucleus than the negative center)
The average or root mean
square electron velocity in a receiving antenna caused by the sustained field
and denoted, v, is preceded by increasing transverse
dipoles inside the atomic nuclei due to the same field. As an alternating voltage is induced inside
the receiver antenna, the cumulative effect of the instantaneous forces
producing increasing dipoles is to produce an observable response in a distant
receiver after kr/c seconds if the light or microwave
or am/fm/tv source forces per unit charge, Es(t), are repeated often enough and are not too
weak relative to the source receiver distance, r, and to the ambient noise in
the receiver. After this delay, the
average length of the oscillating dipole “inside” the nucleus is almost as
large as the inner electron radius and cannot increase further: rv/c cannot exceed this limit of approximately .1 Angstrom
(If it does at r* less than r, say r*=kr, k<1,
then the delay is kr/c).
The formula for the increase
of the field in the receiver could be written then as the transient solution of
a “resonant forced harmonic oscillator with damping”:
(1-exp-ct/kr)[(
(2πkrf/c)2(cos2πft)QD/4πε0r3]
= ER(t) as derived below.
Notice that the term in brackets is, when the r’s
are cancelled, formally the same as predicted by Maxwell’s famous equations, involving alternating magnetic and electric
fields proceeding wavelike through the ether, arriving at a receiver, r/c seconds after emission, but we allow that
there is some value, kr less than the source to
receiver distance r, and time, kr/c < r/c seconds later that the field at the receiver
rises above noise to its maximal value, especially for larger values of,r..
How do we arrive at this
formulation? An electrostatic dipole
field, an inverse cube field, varying over time is produced by oscillating
dipoles; for example, an oscillation of
nA0D0=8.47(3.14)(4)10(28-6) free electrons in a copper vertical
emitting radio antenna, eg D0=1 meters in
height of 4 millimeter diameter or
excited bound atomic and molecular electrons, a few Angstroms in height
and 1mm in diameter on and around for example, a vertical heated tungsten
filament of a light bulb in an Argon atmosphere. (n= 8.47(1028) is
the density of free electrons in copper) Note that these oscillations occur
only when the bound electrons of an atom or molecule are thermally excited to
wider orbits and fall back to less wide orbits and to their ordinary bound
orbit. Radiation from adjacent out of phase ground and wider metastable orbits of the same radius, cancel each other such that
energy lost in part of the orbit is regained during the rest of the orbit. The
frequency emitted during a transition between two such orbits is uncancelled and is the average frequency of the two orbits(which is, within measurement error, equal to the
difference frequency)
In a radio antenna receiver, the source field acts for short times between thermal collisions on free electrons
but again and again at a specific frequency in the same direction. These
forces, we claim, also act on negatively charged particles of much lesser mass
inside atomic nuclei. The
repetition of force leads
to a cumulative increase in oscillation amplitude inside the nuclei and then on
the orbital electrons of the receiver of light.
We show below that the initial longitudinal force from the emitter
produces transverse charge polarization and that these changes in transverse
charge polarization produce longitudinal charge polarization first inside the
nuclei and then among the free electrons inside the antenna. And that the induced longitudinal charge
polarization produces a field stronger than the field from the emitter and in
the opposite direction.
Light
Emission and Reception
Not all radiation energies are possible but only integral
multiples of Planck’s constant,h, which Bohr showed
was the energy expended by an electron of charge e, in a single orbit around a
central core of opposite charge in a circular path with a radius, r0= ((1/2)10-10 meters.
Roughly 10-18 Joules times 10-16 seconds. That
is ˝mev02 times 1/f0 where mev2/r0
=9(109)e2/r02 and solving for
v0≈ 10(10-38+10+30)/2 ≈106, 1/f0=2πr0/v0
≈ 1016.
We can extend this to fine structure frequencies associated with
other distinct orbits and energy levels explained in terms of electron spin and
relativistic mass of elliptical orbits which are otherwise of the same energy
but ascribe these effects to electrostatic dipoles in the electron.
Also Xray
radiation from inner electrons in smaller orbits, we can use the same Planck
constant and a frequency, f, such that fh=f*h* where,
f, is defined as f*h*/h and where h* is the kinetic energy expended in 1/f*
seconds of these smaller radius orbits and f* is the frequency of these smaller
orbits. Since only the energy,fh,
of the radiation is measured, this is ok.
However we must realize that the actually occurring frequency
is not f, but rather f*. We can extend the convention to the emission of
gamma radiation due to orbiting charged masses inside nuclei moving at
superluminal velocities as described and justified above. Also
to half cycles of braking radiation.
The point is that all radiation energy, then, is a multiple of the
product of some
charged mass, usually electron mass (but it could involve charged masses inside
the electron etc) times its squared velocity which can be represented by
convention as Planck’s constant times some frequency.
The orbital excitations are
produced by thermal collisions. At each
collision, we propose, a tangential force acts on an orbiting electron to
produce additional transverse expansion of the elliptically moving negative
charge inside the electron of charge, -2e, around a larger core mass of charge, +e, and radial
charge polarization inside the orbiting
electron. Since the attractive force and
repelling force between the electron and nucleus are equal at the ground orbit
radius, this charge polarization must increase the repulsion between the
electron and the negative charge inside the nucleus beyond this equilibrium and
so add to the velocity increase of the electron.
This explains the discrete, quantized, frequencies and energies observed. Why it
leads to elliptical orbits then circular orbits of radius n2r0
, and velocity v0/n and frequency f0/n3
is explained in part by the additional kick given to the thermal collision
increase in orbital velocity and by the
least energy arrangement of adjacent orbitals so as
to cancel one another’s radiation which
means that the energy lost in part of an
orbit to an adjacent orbit, is wholly or partially regained in the rest
of the orbit. A charged particle moving counterclockwise in the left circle at
the point, opp, opposes a similarly charged particle moving
counterclockwise in the right circle at the point, opp
etc...
. For example, the average
frequency and energy radiated during the transition between a ground orbit of radius,r, and a radius 4r
or 9r is:(h)1016( ˝)(1+1/8) or (h)1016(˝)(1+1/27).
The lack of a measureable difference between average frequencies during a
light emitting or absorbing transition and difference frequencies means there
is no need for the quantum premise of
discontinuous absorption and
emission of energies associated with difference frequencies!
As the receiving oscillator
is constantly changing its orientation, the sequence of forces from the source
is constantly changing direction in the sense that the component oscillating
forces from the source in the direction of a receiver molecule orientation is
constantly changing but their effect on the receiver can be described in terms
of the combined effect of component oscillations in the plane of the receiver molecule at
successive instants of time.
In the case of forces produced
on orbiting electrons in the atoms and molecules of a photoreceptor such as the
silicon material in a CCD array, the orbital electrons react to a tangential
force that produces at first charge polarization inside the electron and an
excitation of the orbital electron into a wider orbit. Before and during this time, the nucleus of
the same atom experiences charge polarization from the same outside force which
is transverse to the direction of force which is the same as the tangential
direction of the force on the orbiting electron.
The effect
of these forces inside the nucleus of the orbiting electron are
equivalent to the forces in the longitudinal radio antenna. That is, changing
transverse polarization creates changing longitudinal polarization and an amplification of the
source ‘longitudinal’ forces but the directions of transverse and longitudinal
are constantly changing. The result is an increase over kr/c
seconds in the tangential forces acting on the orbiting electron, and so an
increase in the orbit until the electron in the photosensitive silicon is
ejected into a region of the silicon where it is held by a capacitor plate for
a preset time, and the energy per second of the received radiation is
calculated by a digital circuit.
We can infer the final root
mean square v(t) of oscillating charge from measurements of the average or rms
voltage and current in a receiver antenna given a distance r, from a
radio(am or fm) or a microwave transmitter of a specified power. In the case of photoreceptors, we can infer v(t) from the number of emitted electrons after successive
picoseconds etc. assuming 1.26eV per electron emitted in a CCD array. That is,
if one electron is emitted after a nanosecond which is 105 times the
10-14 seconds between thermal
collisions when the average field due to the source and resonantly increasing
induced forces, is say producing rms average values
of v, that are say .4 meter per second, during each orbital period which is
also about 10-14 seconds for visible light, then (.4)105 times 10-1
= (4)104 is added to the 105 velocity to produce, roughly
,the square root of 2 or 1.4 times 105 which is the escape velocity
that registers as one electron on the CCD capacitor.
If it takes a micro or
millisecond before an electron is emitted, then smaller values of v are
produced each 10-14 second. Call these values, x, where 108 or 1011 times
10-14 seconds implies 108 or 1011 times x
equals 104 so x=10-4 or 10-7. That is, these
are the velocities, v, each 10-14 second
that, added to the atomic orbital velocity, produce the observed rate of
ejection.
Thus the rate of ejection of
electrons in CCD pixel is a measure of the delay before a light or modulated
light source is detectable due to the weakness of the source as well as to the
distance from the source. The forces in both cases are acting again and again
for very short times. The electron velocities in the direction of the field in
a radio antenna are much smaller eg 10-5
meters per second typically than the free electron thermal velocity, or atomic
electron orbital velocities 106 or 105 meters per second.
Note the orbital velocities
whose differences between pairs of excited orbits etc., because these
differences are nearly equal to the averages of the same pairs, produce visible
light.
Suppose for example, v=10-4
meters/second is added every 10-14 second period to the above orbital velocity of 105.5 so that after 1010 such additions,
the added orbital velocity is 106 meters per second, then ejection at the square root of 2 times
the orbital velocity will occur after only about a millisecond. Note thermal collisions of the orbits will
have a net zero effect over time but the repeated resonantly increasing velocity will have a
net cumulative effect.
Radio
Reception
Initially in the radio
receiver antenna there is a sequence
over time, t, in picoseconds or less, of Coulomb forces, eE(t)
= (e)[(1/4πe0) times (neA0D0cos2πft)/r3] = F0cosωt, perpendicular to a line from the source, on
free electrons of charge, e; (similarly for orbital electrons and on the
orbital charge inside the lattice nuclei of the receiver antenna.)
These forces constitute a
single oscillating force analogous to that of a forced mechanical oscillator, eg the pushing of a child on a swing, with characteristic
parameters, the mass, m, the stiffness, h, and the frictional resistance, j,
and the possibility of resonance if the forcing frequency, ω =2πft,
is timed to the natural frequency, ω0, of the oscillator.
The mechanical force equation is F0cos(ωt)-hx-jx’= mx’’.
–hx
denotes a restoral force proportional to the
displacement and –jx’ denotes a resistive eg frictional force proportional to the velocity. Dividing by the mass, m,
and rearranging terms.
(F0/m)cos(ωt)
= x’’+γx’+ω2x.
where
γ=j/m and h/m = ω02 is the natural
frequency squared of the mechanical oscillator being forced.
We will show that the solution is with x=q/neA,
q = (1-exp-ct/kr)
[-(krf/c)2 ][(1/4πe0)neADcos(2πft
+ θ )]/r3((-ω2 + ω02)
+ γω) where ω=2πf and ω0
= 2πf0.
This is exactly equal to
Maxwell’s formula for the radiation received at a later time except for the
resonance factor in the denominator containing the forcing frequency and the
natural frequency of the receiving antenna and the exponential term in the
numerator.
This implies that a stronger source at a more resonant receiver can sometimes be received or detected sooner than a weaker source at a less resonant receiver. In Maxwell’s formulation the received radiation from a strong or weak source will arrive at the same time. We make the disclaimer that at small distances, r, the average transverse dipole effect of a stronger source could inhibit more strongly the transient increase of the received radiation than a weaker source. The net effect would be that the radiation from a stronger source becomes detectable no sooner than that from a weaker source. But at larger distances, r, this effect is cancelled by other such fields.
How do we arrive at this
solution? The solution
is obtained by writing the unknown, x, as the real part, xr,
of a complex number, x =(xr,xi) which can also be written
also as xr,+ix =Acosθ
+iAsinθ =Aeiθ.
Thus different values of A and θ will give a chosen value of xr but then xi = Aeiθ
is determined.
The advantage of this complex
representation is that the derivative of an exponential function is the function
itself. Thus d2/dt2((x)exp(iωt))
= d2/dt2[Aexp(i(θ+ωt)]
= Aexp(iθ) d2/dt2[Aexp(iωt)] = (x )(iω)2exp(iωt))
Thus substituting (x)exp(iωt)
and Fexp(iωt) for their real components, x and F0cos(ωt), in (F0/m)cos(ωt) = x’’+
γx’+ω2x , we obtain
(x)(iω)2
exp(iωt) + (x)(γiω)exp(iωt) + (x)(ω02) exp(iωt) = (F/m) exp(iωt)
Dividing both sides
by exp(iωt) and dividing the left
side by the coefficient of x we see
that
x = F divided by m((-ω2 + ω02) + iγω) is the solution.
We can write x as (ρ)exp(iθ)F where ρ2 = 1/[m(-ω2 + ω02)
+ iγω)][m((-ω2 + ω02)
- iγω)]
=
1/m2 ((-ω2 + ω02)2
+γ2ω2)
Thus 1/ρexp(iθ) = (1/ρ)exp(-iθ)
=m ((-ω2 + ω02) +γω
)
But exp(-iθ) =cos(-θ)+isin(-θ) and
tan –θ = sin-θ/cos-θ = -γω/(-ω2 + ω02). It is minus because tan(-θ)=-
tan(θ). A negative value of θ results for all ω, and this
corresponds to the displacement x lagging the force F.
(see Feynman Lectures, v1, 23-4, 23.12)
Lets apply this analysis to
the receiver antenna where we take into account charge polarization inside
atomic nuclei as well as the motion of free electrons caused by the applied forcing
oscillator. We have a displacement of
charge, nex, in the antenna containing neAD electrons where neAx’(t) = I(t) is the current and the restoral force
on an electron, e, is –ne2x(t)/e0 from this displacement as derived below. The above mechanical solution
suggests x(t) =KF0cos(ωt
+ θ); where K is to be determined.
We have a second force, –jx’ due to the resistive effect of more thermal collisions
when the electron velocity, x’ increases due to more collisions and reduced
time between collisions and that this is due in part to greater transverse
dipoles, (r/c) times x’(t), so the
resistive force is –(j)(r/c)( -Kω F0sin(ωt
+ θ)).
We have a third force
proportional to x” that is due to longitudinal dipoles that produce a field in
the opposite direction to the applied field. These longitudinal dipoles (r/c)2 times x’’ equals -(K)(r/c)2ω2F0cos(ωt + θ).
Let’s examine more closely
first, the restoral force and then the forces due to
transverse and longitudinal dipoles:
mx”= -(ne2/e0)x describes
the force of an electron displaced a distance, x, in a closed volume of
electrons and positive particles from its equilibrium position where the net
force on it is zero. This formula is derived from considering the force
per unit charge produced by a region of unspecified net charge inside a sphere
of radius 4πr on the surface of the sphere which Gauss showed was the same
for any shaped surface eg a cube enclosing the
sphere. Considering the force component
vector at each point of the surface normal ie
perpendicular, to the surface due to all of the net charge enclosed and
integrating over the sphere, we get the net charge inside. So a displacement of charge by a distance x
perpendicular to one face of the cube, times the density gives a net charge
and this is the integral over the
surface, so that you multiply the surface area of the sphere, 4πr2
, times nex/4πe0r2
times e, the charge of a
displaced electron, which is the force
per unit charge at each point on the sphere normal to the surface so that all
that is left is, e0,
in the denominator and ne2x in the numerator.
Now let’s examine the
transverse dipoles. As in the case of a constant voltage in a dc current
carrying wire, there is here in the case of an oscillating current, a
transverse distortion of the orbits of negatively charged particles around a
more positive core inside the lattice nuclei of the radio antenna or of the
atomic antennas of the photoreceptors which produces transverse dipoles,
perpendicular to the movement of the electrons and negatively charged particles
inside the lattice nuclei. We showed that these dipoles per unit length were kr/c times the electron velocity in the direction of
current and voltage, so in this ac case, krx’(t)/c = ptran is the transverse dipole.
The rate of change of these
dipoles is a transverse oscillation of charge,
a transverse oscillating “current” which produces a current of
oscillating longitudinal dipoles per
unit length (kr/c)2x’’(t) = plg
At successive times, t, transverse chains of these dipoles produce
a transverse field at any point along the chain in the direction of the dipole
and on either side of the dipole where the distance between dipoles is “a”
where for example 1/a3 = n = 8.47(1028) for copper. (Note
the field of each dipole, p, of length, s, p=es,
along the axis of the dipole is 2p.(R.Feynman, Lectures on Physics v2p6-3)). Adding up the
forces from each dipole:
Etran=
(2ptran/4πe0)(1/a3)[2+2/8+2/27+......) = (ptran/e0)(.383/a3)
“If the next identical lines
of dipoles were only the distance “a” away - the
number .383 would be changed to 1/3. In other words, if the next lines were at
the distance “a” they would contribute only -.050 to our sum.[ that is all the
other atoms in the wire can be ignored in determining the longitudinal force at
any point in a single chain]” Feynman v2p11-10.
Etran
is the field produced by each chain of dipoles on every point eg on every free electron inside the conductor in addition
to the field from the emitting antenna.
Now this field would be
immediately cancelled by a redistribution of free electrons if it was not
constantly changing. This oscillating current of varying transverse dipoles
inside the atomic nuclei or rather the associated changing field creates
dipoles transverse to itself, i.e., longitudinally. Just as in the case of direct currents the
dipoles per unit length are proportional to the current or the average electron velocity,
namely krv/c.
In this case a transverse current of changing transverse polarizations
of charge inside the atomic nuclei.
One question here is that the
original longitudinal current was the movement of free electrons and still this
provided a measure of the charge polarization of much smaller mass inside the
atomic nuclei transverse to it. Does
the derivative of this “current” also provide a measure of the rate of change
of charge polarization inside the nuclei? We assume that it does. In both cases
the “current” is produced by an implicit electric field in combination with the
elasticity of charge,c,
inside the nucleus, that produces the charge polarization.
The longitudinal dipoles in
combination produce a field described by the same cosine function as the field
from the emitter but with a negative cosine so the field is opposite to the
field from the emitter.
Elong
= (plong/e0)(.33/a3)=(n/3e0) (kr/c)2(x”(t))
Thus the forced
oscillator equation to be solved could be written, with (1/4πe0)neADcos2πft/r3 set equal to E(t,r), acting on a
point in the receiver antenna along with forces 1)proportional to the second
derivative of this force times (kr/c)2
meaning it is a cosine function in the opposite direction of E(t,r), and 2) a force also
proportional to the current which is ninety degrees out of phase with E(t,r) meaning it is a “–sine” function of the same
frequency, and 3) a force in the opposite direction of the displacement.
Because the inductive force proportional to the second derivative can be (krf/c)2 times the source force and thus larger than the source force if krf is larger than 3(108)
eE(t,r)- (ne2/e0)x(t)
- (kr/c)( ne2/e0)x’(t) -(ne2/3e0)(kr/c)2 x"(t) = m x"(t)
Multiplying this equation by D/e and writing x=q/neA
and ED=V we obtain
V(t,r)= [(ne2/3e0)(kr/c)2 + m ]q"(t)[D/ne2A] + (kr/c)( ne2/e0)q’(t) [D/ne2A] +(ne2/e0)q(t) [D/ne2A]
or V(t,r)-[(ne2/3e0)(kr/c)2 q"(t)[D/ne2A]
-(kr/c)( ne2/e0)q’(t)
[D/ne2A] -(ne2/e0)q(t) [D/ne2A]
=m x"(t)
(Note that the second term in the equation above is
the inductive force and that it will be larger than the source force for large
f and r. We will use this fact later)
(Note (ne2/e0)(r/c)2
which for typical values, like r=104 is 1029-38+11-8 = 10-6
or in a range
typically of 10-10 to 10-4 and in any case so much larger
than m=9(10-31), that we can drop the “m “ term or electron mass in
the first V(t,r) equation here. Simplifying, we obtain
V(t,r) - [(kr/c)2 (1/3e0) (D/A)] q"(t) + [(kr/c)(1 /e0)
(D/A)] q’(t) + [(1/e0)
(D/A)] q(t)
This equation represents the voltage difference in a wire of cross section area, A, and length D at time t at a distance, r from a powered emitting antenna. But it is also the equation for an oscillatory electrical circuit with the inductance, resistance, and capacitance defined by the corresponding bracketed coefficients:
V= [L]q’’+[R]q’+q[1/C] . The solution can be obtained by considering the
corresponding complex numbers,q and V
q = V/L((iω)2
+ R(iω) +
1/C) =V/L(ω02 -ω2 +iγω) where ω02
=1/LC and γ = R/L. “It is exactly
the same denominator as we had in the mechanical case with exactly the same
resonance properties”
q = V divided by L((-ω2 + ω02) + iγω) is the solution or rather q = V0cos(ωt+θ)/L((-ω2 + ω02)
+ γω)
= qmax cos(ωt+θ) where tan –θ = sin-θ/cos-θ = -γω/(-ω2
+ ω02) =tan θ describes the phase lag in the
receiver antenna.
This is the steady state solution but the oscillation of charge in the receiving
antenna with parameters, R,L and C
experiences a transient increase, qmaxcos(ωt+θ)(1-exp-Rt/L)
where R/L=c/r or c/kr so that when t=kr/c the amplitude of oscillating charge in the receiver is
nearly 2/3 of its asymptotic maximum.
It is clear from comparing the inductive force with the source field force that the
inductive force can be larger if f and r are large enough. Thus our solution
above, based on the source field
q = [(1/4πe0)neADcos(2πft + θ)]/r3
L((-ω2 + ω02) + γω),
can be modified by multiplying this,q, by - (rf/c)2, which represents the second derivative
of the bracketed term and then by L. In effect we have substituted the induced
field for the source field in solving for ,q. We obtain then a different representation of
the solution:,
q = (1-exp-ct/kr) [-(krf/c)2 ][(1/4πe0)neADcos(2πft + θ )]/r3((-ω2 + ω02) + γω) where ω=2πf and ω0 = 2πf0. This is exactly equal to Maxwell’s formula for the radiation received at a later time except for the resonance factor in the denominator containing the forcing frequency and the natural frequency of the receiving antenna and the exponential term in the numerator. Thus it is possible that a stronger source at a more resonant receiver will be received or detected sooner than a weaker source at a less resonant receiver.
This is all quite analogous
to Maxwell's changing electric field creating a magnetic field and the changing
magnetic field creating an electric field.
But instead of changes happening through ethereal vortices or wheels and
ball bearings or some mathematical equivalent, i.e., the curl_and
divergence of vector fields, ie magnetic
and electric fields, in the intervening space between source and receiver, it happens in movements of actual, charged
particles inside atomic nuclei in the receiver and source.
Note that for large r, rv/c, is near .1 Angstrom even when the average or root mean square velocity of charge in the receiver is very small and so the delay before this occurs and the electron oscillation amplitude is large enough to be detectable, may not be so great. That is, the delay may be much smaller than r/c. kr/c is the delay where k is much less than 1, before the oscillation of charge inside the nuclei increases and produces the oscillation of charge inside the antenna.
We have now definitions of Inductance, and Resistance, in terms of charge polarization inside atomic nuclei.
Are these definitions compatible with the standard definitions?
Since R=(1.7)(10-8)D/A is the resistance of a copper wire of length D meters and cross section area, A square meters, as in this example, it follows that (kr/c)(1/3e0)=(1.7)(10-8) which it is, if k=1, r=10-9.65+x meters; c = 5*108 and 4πe0 = 1/9(109) so e0 = [1/(12.56*9)]10-9 = .88(10-11) and 1/3e0 = .379(1011) so (5*.379 )10-9.65+x-8+11 = (1.7)10-8 = (1.9) 10-6.65+x. This implies x is about -1.35 so that the distance between interacting filaments of current is a little more than ten times the interatomic spacing. Such spacing is consistent with the fact that the dipole force formula is applicable only when the dipole length is much smaller than the distance between the dipole and another dipole or point charge on which the first dipole is exerting a force.
Since L = 4π(10-7)(l)/8π
for a wire of length, l
, this should equal our (kr/c)2 (1/3e0) (D/A)] where D= l and A=πr2 and we
see that
1/c2(3e0) = (1/3(9)10-16)(4π(9)109)/3) = ( 1/3)(
4π )(1/3)(10-7) and that
r2/ πr2 times this is (4/9)times 10-7
and times l, gives us the standard, experimentally
determined value, L = 4π(10-7)(l)/8π
for a wire of length, l.
.
Such an explanation of light
transmission requires that the cumulative increase of the received radiation above a threshold
of observation depends on constant exposure of the receiver to the source. That is, radiation we observe from stars
cannot have originated years or centuries ago as implied by the extrapolation
of terrestrial light speed measurements to such distances; indeed it could not have originated
more than 12 hours or 12 times 3600 = 43,200 seconds earlier at most when a
heavenly object rises and then falls below the horizon of any observer tracking
its trajectory across the sky.
One of the side benefits of
this explanation of light transmission is that the Lorentz
Transformation,1/(1-v2/c2)1/2
times mass, length or duration, where v is the relative velocity of source and
observer, which Einstein used to explain infinite `mass increase because it so
well explained the lack of ether drift
in the Michelson Morely experiment is unnecessary. That is, if light is not the
motion of something but rather the additive effect of repeated instantaneous
forces at a distance, then there is no
need for space contraction or time dilation etc..
Red Doppler shifts etc. of
spectra from a source moving away from a receiver would be expected because
of the ratio of the speed of the moving source to the rate of increase of the transient as successive oscillations of
charge are produced in the receiver and have nothing to do with time slowing
down. Slower muon
decay in very fast moving muons can be ascribed to
the interference of
forces causing the high speed of the muons
and the inner forces leading to the
decay and may have nothing to do with time slowing down in the muon.
Also, as shown in detail
later, there is no need to have the force of gravity, say between the Sun and
the Earth, depend on curved space, ie
the rate of change of the force, proportional to the mass and inversely to the
distance squared, to avoid the supposed light speed delay of gravity. This was Laplace’s concern around 1800, that the
Earth orbiting at .5km/second, for example would be dragged backward
when pulled in the direction the Sun was when the force was “emitted” and so
spiral into the Sun unless the speed of gravity was much larger than the speed
of light. If the force of gravity is instantaneous and continuous unlike the
repeated oscillating relatively weak instantaneous forces causing increases in oscillations
of light or microwave frequencies etc. From comparable distances over times
that are still much less than the r/c seconds usually ascribed, there is no
need to worry.
The bending of starlight by
the Sun associated with the curved space effect is the same as predicted by the
difference in the influence of the Sun on radiation reception on the Earth when
the Sun is facing the Earth compared to its effect when the Sun is on the other
side of the Earth. Other supposed validations of the curved space hypothesis
have other feasible interpretations as discussed later.
LIGHT
SPEED MEASUREMENTS
Many measurements of light
delay used to determine the distance to a radiation source are only of the
light speed rate of increase of the transient carrier oscillations in the
receiver, where this rate of increase is compared with the known speed of the
receiver eg as the Earth moves relative to a source
like Bradley’s fixed star etc..
Everyone assumes that light
speed is something that has been verified hundreds of times at all frequencies
and terrestrial distances and that time
delay can be used to accurately determine
not just plane to ground or gun to target distances with radar but, with
GPS devices, distances to within centimeters to
satellites about 12000 miles away, and with microwave communications
distances to space probes up to billions of miles away, and with lidar and radar
reflections sent from the Earth to the
moon and planets , distances to stars
four hundred light years away as
determined by parallax and further as determined by the relationship determined
between apparent brightness and spectrum peak detected brightness for these
distances applied to greater distances.
If one looks at the details, the
experimental confirmation is not as unambiguous as we are led to believe. eg weak radar returns could be
from more recent repetition of radar emissions than from earlier emissions
expected from the standard speed of light delay assumption, electronic and
built in redundancy delay in radio measurements from distant satellites and
space probes.
The Maxwell theory implies
that a doubly strong source at the same distance,r, to a receiver would NOT be received with half the
delay. And the theory
of transient oscillations of charge inside atomic nuclei agrees that this might
occur for small values of r. That is,
magnetic resistance
would be produced by the associated transverse field of the
longitudinal source field. The greater the longitudinal field the greater the
transverse interfering field, at least for smaller values of r while for large
values of r magnetic resistance fields from other sources would cancel such an
effect. But there is no evidence, that
I have been able to find, to support this for small values of r or for large values
or r. For example in the the Fizeau-Michelson
type experiments where the distances are five to 25 miles double strong source fields have not been
compared with weaker source fields. Similarly for GPS
satellites at distances near 12000 miles.
It almost seems that light
speed delay measurements, by accident or design in the GPS case, have
calibrated source powers-50 watt instead of 8kW- and distances so that the
speed of light delay comes as close as possible to the square root of the unit
electric force divided by the unit magnetic force times the average distance.
Before analysing
historical measurements, that everyone, including NASA, considers as support for the
speed of light delay extrapolation to astronomical distances, let me state the
following.
Statistical methods for analysing a pseudo random sequence of microvolt changes
against a background of random changes of the same magnitude are used by NASA
in interpreting radar signals bounced off the moon and nearby planets and their
moons. See for example Pettingill et al, at MIT: A
Radar Investigation of Venus in the Astronomical Journal of May 1962, v67.
“Individual runs consisted of transmitting a simple train of uniformly spaced
pulses for a time approximately equal to the EXPECTED round-trip echo delay
which varied 283 to 449 seconds over the course of the experiment[given
the Earth and Venus orbits and the assumed speed of light] Shortly before the
first pulse of the train arrived back, the transmitter was shut down and the
antenna connected to the receiver. The receiving frequency was adjusted for the
Doppler shift and integration in the computer was begun. Since the individual
returning echo pulses were much weaker than the overall system noise, they
could not be seen. In general five
minutes of integration were required to render the echo visible[ By adding
supposed repetitions of the noise plus known pseudo random sequence of ones and
zeroes, for a repeated train of pulses the noise with various starting points,
the noise should cancel out in a large number of such additions]. The supposed
echo was the chosen sequences of pulses which when added together showed the
larges number of sums that were non zero, ie above an
arbitrary level and came closest in agreement with the pseudo random
sequence. But there was no independent
confirmation of the procedure as in the GPS system!
The GPS device does not
directly measure the time, t*= .066 seconds about, it takes to receive a radio
signal emitted by a fifty watt satellite transmitter from a distance of about
12,000 miles(19,310km), but rather the much shorter
time differences divided by the speed of light that establish where the
satellite is with reference to some almanac position and Earth latitude and
longitude below the satellite position
and the GPS device is relative to this Earth latitude and longitude. The
replica code is .0001 second long so that distances x<(12000/.066)(.001)
=181 miles plus the otherwise known distance from the craft can be determined.
This is due in part obviously to the weakness of a signal sent from such
distances by a 50 watt transmitter -instead of an 8 kW transmitter used in the deep
space probes that work at millions of miles.
Its almost as if
the delay for determining distance is really the delay produced
not by light speed but by the weakness
of the signal calibrated to the known distances, in the case of the satellite,
using Newtonian orbital calculations as well as known distances on Earth, to
obtain the known distance to a device at an unknown location.
Radio communications with the GPS
system involving transmission delays supposedly of about 66 milliseconds to
orbiting satellites about 12,000 miles or
1.9310(107)m away can have speed of light delays which
are much less than .066 seconds and
still give the accurate measures of distance as they are shown to give. (That is, if
the average or rms current produced by the source on the GPS receiver
produces rv/c =10-10 in r/c seconds
then v=(3)(1/1.931)10-10+8-7 ≈
10-9 is such that average
free electron velocity, v(t) is small enough so krv(t)/c,
is less than about 1 Angstrom after t = kr/c seconds
where kr may
be less eg 1/100,000th of r
where r=2.02(107)m approximately). Thus two GPS devices where
one is 1 meter closer than the other, (r-1<2.02(107 )-1)
meters) will show the carrier rising above noise still at slightly different
times, eg, 2.02(102)/3(108) =
.6(10-6) seconds and 1/3(108) = .33(10-8
) seconds or 3.3 nanoseconds
earlier. Note this would mean that the
further away GPS device would show the rise above noise, not during the first bit of about .6 microsecond duration, but
during the second repetition of this bit for example. Thus, so long as the rise time above noise is
less than the difference in distances divided by the so called speed of light,
the distances between GPS positions can be detected. (The matching up of the stored replica would
be one bit earlier in the closer GPS). Now instead of the other GPS device
substitute the position determined at the same time implied by Doppler shift
data from the satellite and almanac data about where the satellite is at any
specific time relative to a specific latitude and longitude position and
different delay times and matching of the replica from adjacent satellites
where the difference in distance is less than 181 miles.)
In the Pioneer space craft
that went to the edge of the solar system before their signals became too weak
to be observed on Earth, after passing
Jupiter, Doppler shift measures
of successive changes of position wrt time were more reliable than range measures of the time
between sent and received signals.
Note that as the craft-Earth
distance increased, the number of repeated bits in each signal increased to
avoid errors and the time of this repetition exceeded the speed of light delay.
Specifically, communication with the 8kW transmitter on the
Pioneer 10 space probe near Pluto at a distance of 4.34(1012) meters
or, dividing by 3(108) m/s, 14,400 seconds or 4 hours away or
something similar for the Voyager space probes.
But it may also be, as allowed by the proposed mechanism, that the speed of
light delay was less. I am told by NASA that the duration of repetition of ones
and zeros in a series (comprising a code or an instruction or a set of
instructions) sent to and from deep space probes always exceeded the speed of light delay ( 4
hours per bit or group of bits). Even if the duration or
repetition of the carrier modulation for a one or a zero was less, even much
less than the speed of light delay, the difference in positions of the space
probe at successive times would have been accurately detected.
That is, the change in
frequency received on the ground showed the relative speed of craft and the
Earth antenna. Increasing conflict between successive Doppler measures and
range measures after the probes passed Jupiter indicated something might
be wrong with the speed of light delay
assumptions
John Anderson, a radio
engineer at NASA, unwittingly has shown that the speed of light assumptions
implicitly used by NASA for all of their work to track the Pioneer and Voyager
deep space crafts were probably wrong. That is the spacecrafts
seem to be slightly more attracted to the Sun than were the planets. A possible
reason for this is incorrect assumptions about the speed of light delay and
implied positions of the craft when signals were received supposedly many hours
after they were sent from the craft and when the Earth was not aimed at the
instantaneous position of the craft. Many other relativistic and light pressure
explanations were exhaustively examined and discredited by Anderson and his
team.
Now for the historical
measurements: First,
Roemer’s so called measurement of the speed of light in 1676.
Roemer’s measurement of the speed of light required that light be a wave front
or a group of moving particles. That is,
Roemer's measurement required that reflected Sunlight, reflected from the surfaces of Jupiter's
moons, traveled as a wave front or particle for about 40 minutes using
Bradley's value (or 55 minutes using Roemer's value) until it reached the
Earth.
By which time an observer on the Earth would
have orbited and spun with the Earth a substantial distance, sometimes from
under clouds, to a location with an unclouded view of the night sky. Roemer's
measurement did not entail constant exposure of the light receiver to the
light. But nothing of course could block
the reception of light at the expected time of arrival.
Until Bradley's paper on
stellar aberration in 1728, the most knowledgeable astronomers at the time,
like Cassini, thought that the changes Roemer
observed were due to point of view, the obvious, changes in relative positions
of Jupiter’s moons and the Earth and not to light speed. Then the order of
magnitude similarity of Roemer’s measurement of light speed and Bradley’s measurement of light speed
from a distant star but independent of its distance, suggested the light speed
delay from the star was r/c where r was the unknown large distance to the star
Unlike Roemer's measurement, Fizeau’s measurement of light speed in 1849, entailed
constant exposure of the light receiver to the distant mirror when light from
the distant mirror was supposedly traveling about five miles to successive gaps
of a spinning cogwheel or toothed wheel. That is, a strong sodium vapor light
source reflected off of a nearby, slanted, partially transparent mirror, the
source mirror, and was focused by a lens to pass through a fixed region of
successive gaps in a spinning toothed wheel to a distant mirror 8.67km away
through the still dark enough Parisian night sky and then reflected back and
focused through the same or another gap if not blocked by a tooth, going
straight through the slanted glass to the observers eye.
The wheel with 720 teeth when
revolving at 25 revolutions/s gave maximum light intensity and at 37.5
rev/s the teeth apparently eclipsed the light and at 50 rev/s maximum light
intensity again. If the wheel made one
complete revolution in a second, the time between successive gaps at the locus
of the focused light would be 1/720 of a second. So 1/25 times 1/720=1/18000
second is the time it takes for light to leave through one gap and reach the
distant mirror and then to return just in time to pass through the next gap.
This meant a speed of (17.34)km./5.566(10-5)s.
= 3.10204(108 )m./s.
But it is also true that the during the
supposed travel time or rather one quarter of it, light from the source mirror
is exposed to the distant mirror and then, for half of the travel time, a tooth
is interposed between the source and distant mirrors and then for another
quarter, the observer's eye behind the source is exposed to the distant mirror.
Now if during these times of
exposure first the mirror and then the eye are responding to the oscillations
of charge in the source and mirror respectively. During the time the cog
tooth is blocking the eye, these forces from the source or lenses as secondary
sources cannot act on the eye.
Thus it is possible that
instantaneous forces at a distance initiated at these unobstructed times, and,
delays taking place in the distant mirror, the lenses and the receiver's eyes,
could account for the observed delay made measurable by the spinning toothed
wheel. What would have happened if the light source had been twice as strong or
the distance had been half as great?
In terms of the proposed
mechanism, the transient rises to a maximum value of krv/c
where v is a sine function of the visible light frequency when t=kr/c where r is the total distance of about ten miles and k
is 1. If the light source was twice as
intense, the delay would have been half as great.
It is interesting to note that
Bradley’s 1723-28 light speed observations also could be explained as well as
in terms of the light delay from the observed star but also in terms of the
light delay from the refractive glass, the objective lens at the far end of his
12.5 foot or 25.5 foot telescope, where the star's light is then re-emitted to
the eyepiece in front of the eye (forming a reverse image there) and then being
reversed again by the refracting eyepiece into the eye- or even from the eye’s
own lens to the receptor molecules in the rods and cones.
That is, a bright northerly
star, Gamma Draconis, the brightest star in the Dragon constellation,
at a specific time, spun briefly into the narrow view of the telescope
raised from a north south line of longitude to point directly overhead ie the zenith(51degrees lat. at London) and capable of
being moved by a micrometer mechanism in seconds of a degree but not to exceed
eight minutes of a degree of altitude up or down or to the side being east or
west or north or south.
The Earth, orbits at 29km/s in
its orbital plane directly below this somewhat polar star. In March, the motion
was such that if you drew a line from this star to the object glass of the
telescope and then down to the eyepiece at the time of day the star passed into
and out of view in a east to west direction you would see that the star
appeared more south than at other times of year.
That is, at this time, the
star appeared 41 seconds of arc more southerly than in September as determined
by moving the micrometer until the star was exactly at the center point of the
cross-hairs of the eyepiece at the time of day when it crossed the line of
longitude ie the
It was as if the Earth and eye
were moving exactly opposite to the way they were moving in September and in a
more directly north direction so that by the time the light reached the eye,
the eye had moved more northerly and the image of the star appeared to come
from a more southerly direction.
This meant that the time it
took the light impinging on the objective glass to register on the eye 12.5 or
25.5 feet away was the time it took the Earth and so the observer's eye, to
move in the Earth’s orbital plane a small southerly distance from the base of a
vertical perpendicular dropped from the objective glass edge at the instant the
starlight impinged on the objective glass.( Of course all this time the spin of
the Earth makes the star image to move in an east to west direction also but we
are ignoring this and just looking at the orbital movement that appears to be
northerly at this time of year.) The distance along the vertical perpendicular
is, ct, where, c, is the unknown speed of light and the horizontal(north-south)
distance is ut where, u, is the orbital speed of the
Earth. The time, t, is the same in both cases.
We know that at one day in
March, this distance is 41 arc seconds more south than at the opposite time of
year in September and thus 20.5 arc seconds more south than when 3 months
earlier or later where, there is no such change. Consider then the right
triangle formed by the vertical side of length ct, the hypotenuse being the
25.5 foot telescope and the horizontal side, ut. The
quotient, ut/ct, is the tangent of 20.5 arc seconds
=.0000099 and so c is 29 times this or 2.929292(108) meters/second. The implied delay is about 25.5 nanoseconds
and other telescope lengths,ct,
would have longer or shorter delays.
Bradley’s calculation here allows the possibility that light delay could
be in the space between the star and the eye or, as one in Bradley's circle, T Melvill, in 1753 suggested, wholly inside the eye. (p483 of Bradley, Miscellaneous Works and Correspondence
edited by Stephen Rigaud). As the telescope length, and vertical
distance expressed as, ct, is made smaller or larger, so also is the horizontal
distance that the Earth moves expressed as, ut. But only one value for, c, will work in all
of these cases.
We can interpret these times,
t, as the delays before the oscillations of charge in the receiver atomic
nuclei increase to a maximum amplitude when the distance projected on the
vertical is ct and the receiver is
moving along a horizontal at velocity,u. Thus light from a telescope objective twice
as far away as that from a smaller telescope objective would have r/c delays
produced by the interaction between longitudinal and transverse dipoles induced
in the eye as described above. It is
possible that light from the star could have been delayed for t* such that ct*
is the distance to the star about 148 light years where a single ly=(5)1012 miles, determined long after Bradley by parallax and
other astronomical theory but it is not necessary and Roemer’s observations do
not require it to be so. That is, Roemer’s observations of Jupiter’s moons
could be explained by changes in the vantage point from the Earth as the Earth
and Jupiter and these moons moved r elative to one another.
But then we are left with the
question as to how great is the actual delay of light
from the star? The delay is not just due
to distance but due to combined effect of distance and the strength of the
oscillations of charge in the star. If we construct a light source at some
arbitrary distance so that it has the same effect on a CCD array of pixels as
the star. That is, the number of ejections per second in each pixel above the
dark current tells us in microseconds or nanoseconds or picoseconds the delay of light from
the strong distant star as well as from the weak, close, light source.
You might object that the
stronger more distant source might have a stronger transverse dipole inhibiting
effect. But as we have said before, such ‘magnetic resistance’ at great
distance would be cancelled by other magnetic fields around the receiver.
In Maxwell’s formula by
itself, there is only the assumption of an r/c delay and a mechanism of
ethereal wheels and ball bearings in the intervening r meters of separation
applies to all values of r. But this
assumption has only been unequivocally validated for r= 181 miles at most by
the GPS system. Thus the light from the star experiences a transient delay in
the receiver eye or CCD molecule of krstar
/c seconds which is the same as the rlens
/c seconds for the star’s light reflected by the objective lens of Bradley’s
telescope. In both cases the delay is a few nanoseconds and k must be a very
small fraction of, rstar .
So our (Ar-1)(1-exp-kct/r)
model implies that, if the average rms velocity
produced is say v=(4)10-3 meters/second and a CCD array emits a
1.6eV electron after repeated additions of this velocity every 10-14
second period of the electron orbital, after every 100nanoseconds (107 repeated
additions leading to an additional 4(104) meters per second to the
orbiting electron which sum (1+.414) 105 is the square root of 2 times the 105
meters per second velocity of the orbital electrons leading to ejection) then rv/c for r = 148 ly or 148 times (5)1012 miles times 1.6 to yield
1184(1012)km = 1018 meters, is
1018-3-8 is 107 which we know is 1018 times
too large for rv/c to be .1 Angstrom. Thus we have to multiply 10-18 times
rv/c to make the dipole .1 Angstrom which implies the
delay for the light from the star to the Earth is 10-8 seconds about: The same as the delay for the light from the
objective lens at the top of a 12.5 foot
or 25.5 foot telescope to reach the
ocular lens and eye.
We can consider secondary
scattering from the objective lens as a
much closer and weaker radiation source, r=10 meters that produces a detectable
oscillation in the receiver of root mean squared, v meters/second, such that rv/c is at most .1 Angstrom. That is, v, can be as large as 10-4
meters per second after
a delay of 101-8 or 10-7 seconds. Note that
the strength of the field at the receiver is QD/r times
f2/c2 where QD is the total maximal dipole in the source
antenna or the secondary source antenna. QD for the star is enormous but so is the distance,r. QD for
the objective lens as secondary scattering source is very small but so is the
distance, r. If both of
these net fields are very strong, the oscillating dipoles produced
in the receiver may reach a detectable magnitude before the kr/c
or r/c delay because the fraction from the exponential though much less than
2/3, produces a large value when
multiplied by the strong net field.
If we choose Cassini’s explanation of Roemer’s observation then,
Roemer’s observations are not due to light delay but due to changes in the view
from Earth of Jupiter’s moons at different times. Thus light from the Sun or
from the reflection of Sunlight on Jupiter and its moon’s could be observed in
small fractions of a second after it is emitted without being inconsistent with
Roemer’s observations. Similarly for
observations of Binary Stars whose explanations in terms of the speed of light
could equally well be explained in terms of changes in the view from the Earth
at the chosen times.
The Earth’s orbital speed,
29km/sec, was known then from the known 365 day period and Cassini's
1672 observation of Mars' position from two widely separated points on
Earth(Paris and French Guyana) at the same time which gave the Earth Sun
distance or orbital radius as 1.4(108)km. (1.46(108) is
the more accurate present estimate). Since 39370inches =1km, 29km/sec is 1.141730(106)
inches per second.
Thus in the case of the
Bradley and Fizeau measurements, the delays in the perception of light are
nanoseconds or milliseconds and not 40 or 55 minutes in the case of Roemer’s
measurement and the receiving eye was exposed to the refracted image at the
time of secondary emission from the glass lens.
In any case, Maxwell’s theory
of light transmission and delay in 1861 based on Kirchoff’s
theory of transmission in an aerial coaxial cable(1857),
both a few years after Fizeau’s measurement in 1849,
showed that Fizeau’s light speed measurement agreed roughly,
not only with the Bradley, Roemer values
but also with the ratio of the magnetic
constant, µ0 =4π(10-7 ) to the electric force
constant, 1/4πε0 = 9(109 ). That is, the force
between parallel wires a meter apart carrying currents of 1 amp or 1 coul/s is 10-7 Newtons
and the force between two charged spheres a meter apart each carrying one
Coulomb of charge is 9(109)Newtons. And
that light speed was a fundamental constant relating magnetism to electricity,
c2 = 1/(e0µ0) , Kirchoff's value was c=3.1(108 )m/s.
This led many to conclude that
the differences in the other measurements were due to experimental errors and
that more care in making these measurements- Albert Michelson spent his entire
life doing this- would yield exactly the ratio of the electric force to the
magnetic force. Another possibility is that the speed of light could vary with
the power of the received radiation.
But an even more important implication
of the theoretical value is that some unknown mechanism involving the interplay
between magnetic and electric forces might explain the radiation of light.
Modern experiments showing charge polarization inside atomic nuclei hint at the
nature of this mechanism, perhaps, as summarized above.