the Motion of Matter

[Sparky]

Michael, I have not read all of your pdf paper, but am slowly working on it.

I did find I am having trouble with the "absorbtion and reemittance of a photon", resulting in reflection.

Also, I thought that I understood "shadow" gravity, but this modification of aether induced mass and gravity is a bit more complicated.

And a niggling point: page 5, top of right hand column, did you mean to say, "-so that it is constantly changing is direction,".

[Sparky]

Wading through your paper.

What is the physical dimension of the electron's helical path?

Or any particle's? Too small to be seen in the detectors at Cern?

[Michael V]

Sparky,

What is the physical dimension of the electron's helical path?

I am suggesting that the radius of the helix is the so-called charge radius. If one were to consider sub-atomic particles as stationary objects (or at least relatively stationary) then I believe you would be fooling yourself. Since we know that the universe is in motion, it makes perfect sense to make the default assumption that sub-atomic and aethereal particles are also in constant motion on the scale of their own existence. Therefore, the physical radius of the physical objects that are electrons and protons has no useful meaning. The only useful meaning to radius is a smallest possible radius of interaction. I believe it a mistake to consider electrons and protons as having a realistically definable discrete size or shape, but instead to consider them to all intents and purposes as infinitely small and defined by their motion rather than their actual physical dimensions.

A helix has three fundamental dimensions: a radius of curvature (circular or elliptical), the pitch length (the distance between complete turns; this can also be considered the wavelength, since a helix is simply a 3-dimensional travelling wave motion), arc length (the distance along the curved path of one complete turn; also when you disregard the distance travelled along the wavelength and consider only the circular or elliptical distance, then it can be referred to as an "orbit".

For electrons, the ratio of the Compton wavelength (the de Broglie wavelength of an electron with a velocity of c) and the "circular" distance (orbit ?) is equal to Alpha, the electromagnetic coupling constant (i.e. the fine structure constant). So, alpha is defined as a ratio derived from the 3-dimensional range of motion of electrons.

I do not see any realistic hope of being able to "detect" such motion directly (even if funding is available ). Heisenberg pointed out the bleeding obvious, that you cannot detect such objects without inherently affectingly their travel.

Furthermore, I believe (from a logically deduced viewpoint) that what we identify as action-at-a-distance is impossible to achieve by the transmission of force or energy. I cannot reasonably conceive of the considerable forces that we observe being transmitted or projected from one object or location to another. Since the invisible nature of these "forces" leaves no other possible answer other than a universal aethereal field, then we must assume that the field interacts with every electron and proton at all times regardless of the proximity of other electrons and protons. Thus every electron and proton has at all times access to, by unavoidable interaction, a method of motion, that we then interpret as energy and force. Therefore, it is unreasonable and illogical to take the stance that energy and force are projected across great distances. Instead, matter interaction is a process of an exchange of subtle aethereal signals that travel through the field and affect the behaviour of other matter. The energy and motive force is at all times local to each and every electron and proton.


Michael

[Sparky]

Thanks, Michael. I asked about the physical distance because I was trying to visualize the double slit experiment where you said, " the electron would approach both slits at the same time."

If it were possible to set detectors, as slits, close enough together, that would measure the diameter of the spiral and provide proof that a helical path was being followed, would it not?

[Michael V]

Sparky,

If it were possible to set detectors, as slits, close enough together, that would measure the diameter of the spiral and provide proof that a helical path was being followed, would it not?

I am suggesting that the constant interaction with the aethereal field gives electrons (and protons) and constant and inherent motion. However, interaction with other matter is what makes electrons behave with "linear" travel. Interaction with the field gives them a constant velocity of c and an inherent helical motion, but that motion is in every direction as a reaction to the "ambient" field - they are in constant motion, but are not travelling in any particular direction - effectively going round in circles on the spot. Interaction due to the influence of "signals" from other matter particles causes "linear" travel. The electrons' motive force comes from their inherent motion, with the influence from other matter being only a steering effect. However, once travelling in a particular direction, interaction with the field due to that travel maintains that uniform motion. The motion of travel is twofold, firstly there is the inherent helical motion that defines and "powers" the electron and secondly there is a helical path of travel across space. Think of the electron as a tiny propeller being powered locally by the field, but when influenced by other matter it travels, by a larger helical path. The two helical motions are simultaneous, one is its inherent motion at c, the other is its "linear" travel, but the "linear" travel is not really rectilinear, it is a helical path in a given general direction. The "linear" velocity defines its "linear" de Broglie wavelength.

In the slit experiment, the precise originating point and the precise direction of travel of each individual electron is not unknown. Any attempt to detect and measure the precise direction of travel will affect the "linear" velocity and/or direction of "linear" travel of the electron. Detection can only tell you about the location of an electron at that particular moment. There is no way of establishing any physical knowledge about the path of the electron between detections, since the act of detection affects what it is you are attempting to measure. This intrinsic inability to track and measure sub-atomic objects with genuine precision has led to a probabilistic description of their nature. This is all well and good except that it has been reified into being the actual "quantum magical" nature of the objects. It comes down to whether you are willing to believe that the universe works by magic or mechanics. I am adamantly unwilling to accept that the electron "exists in all possible states until the moment of detection". Instead I am suggesting that its interaction with an aethereal field, whose existence is logically inescapable. Due to a sequence of historical events, the existence of an aethereal field has been avoided for scientifically political rather scientifically logical reasons, only to be added later as a collection of virtual energy fields. If you start from the premise that the "virtual particle/energy fields" (i.e. aethereal field) is the fundamental basis for operation of the universe and then layer matter on top of that, rather than the other way round, then there is no longer any need for quantum spookiness, and the mechanical nature of physical reality can be restored. Probabilistic mathematics is still required to account for the simple fact that we are unable to make detections and measurements without affecting the system we are trying to measure. However, it requires an acceptance that the uncertainty belongs to the experimenter rather than the system. With a backdrop of ptolemaic science with black holes and big bangs, we are unlikely to make any progress any time soon. As scientifically questioning individuals we do not live in the enlightened scientific world that we believed we did. Human society is still grounded in the dark ages. The universe is still viewed by the human centric basis of the principle of relativity. Galileo wasn't really wrong, but Einstein's interpretation was.


Michael

[Sparky]

Detection can only tell you about the location of an electron at that particular moment.

That should be good enough for my experiment. Side by side detectors, each one electron in diameter, detecting a single electron or a stream will
record hits as they are moved further apart till no hits are detected. That would give you the "orbit" diameter, wouldn't it?

If we could produce an array of single electron detectors and fire single electrons at it, if they are traveling in a helical manner, it would produce a circle pattern, wouldn't it?

I was listening to a report about controlling one photon for quantum computer use. If they can control one photon, seems that one electron would be possible.

[sjw40364]

Detection can only tell you about the location of an electron at that particular moment.

That should be good enough for my experiment. Side by side detectors, each one electron in diameter, detecting a single electron or a stream will
record hits as they are moved further apart till no hits are detected. That would give you the "orbit" diameter, wouldn't it?

If we could produce an array of single electron detectors and fire single electrons at it, if they are traveling in a helical manner, it would produce a circle pattern, wouldn't it?

I was listening to a report about controlling one photon for quantum computer use. If they can control one photon, seems that one electron would be possible.

Well, if a photon exists it would have to travel in a spiral IMO, everything does in one form or another. Still not convinced about that photon being a particle tho, at least not as in a single particle.

[Michael V]

sjw,

Well, if a photon exists it would have to travel in a spiral IMO, everything does in one form or another.

I think you mean, a helix. I spiral is "cone" shaped, thus reducing to a point or expanding outwards. For example, a "spiral" staircase is a actually a misnomer, since the shape is a helix, it should really be called a helical staircase.

Michael

[Michael V]

Sparky,

Side by side detectors, each one electron in diameter

Err,um. How you going to build a detector one electron in diameter - what would be the building blocks of such a construction?

detecting a single electron or a stream will
record hits as they are moved further apart till no hits are detected. That would give you the "orbit" diameter, wouldn't it?

The problem is to know the precise point of origin of each electron, and unfortunately, such information cannot be obtained by any method. Also, an electron stream is by definition a collection of electrons that all originated from entirely different locations, since no two electrons could have been at the same location - how can two separate objects occupy the same physical space?

...about controlling one photon for quantum computer use. If they can control one photon...

Really? I mean, REALLY? If you believe the concept that very small objects exist in all possible states until detected, then science and physics are of no use to you - that world is entirely populated by black holes, big bangs and many types of funded "dark" things. Also, is there really any need to pursue the proposition that photons are single discrete particles - in my opinion, this proposition holds a zero percent chance of being correct.


Michael

[Sparky]

Sparky,

Side by side detectors, each one electron in diameter

Err,um. How you going to build a detector one electron in diameter - what would be the building blocks of such a construction?

I'm a big idea man. Will leave the details to others...

detecting a single electron or a stream will
record hits as they are moved further apart till no hits are detected. That would give you the "orbit" diameter, wouldn't it?

The problem is to know the precise point of origin of each electron, and unfortunately, such information cannot be obtained by any method. Also, an electron stream is by definition a collection of electrons that all originated from entirely different locations, since no two electrons could have been at the same location - how can two separate objects occupy the same physical space?

I guess I'm still thinking in terms of electron guns... .so will have to stick with a single electron, maybe through a gate..

...about controlling one photon for quantum computer use. If they can control one photon...

Really? I mean, REALLY? If you believe the concept that very small objects exist in all possible states until detected, then science and physics are of no use to you - that world is entirely populated by black holes, big bangs and many types of funded "dark" things. Also, is there really any need to pursue the proposition that photons are single discrete particles - in my opinion, this proposition holds a zero percent chance of being correct.
Michael

They seem to think that they can make a quantum computer....

"If you believe the concept that very small objects exist in all possible states until detected, then science and physics are of no use to you."

No, I don't believe that. And I am about to give up on becoming a physicist. At the rate I'm progressing, it just aint going to happen.

ireallydonno

Thanks for helping...

[Michael V]

Sparky,

They seem to think that they can make a quantum computer....

They can find also find an expanding universe, a big bang universal creation event (complete with supernatural inflation field) that we have come to exist in only 14-15 billion years after time zero. Now the universe is mostly full of dark energy and dark matter and most of what is left is sucked into or spat out by black holes. However, I should expect a fully working magic quantum computer about the same time as they deliver an operational tokamak device, which will probably be some time in the next 14-15 billion years.

Also, with regard to your electron precise location detector, since the detection mechanism is the emission of charge and/or light photons from other electrons, then the hope for a precise co-ordinate location detector becomes even more pessimistic. As you have now realised, even the smallest of electron guns is orders of magnitude larger than the electrons it emits.

If you are willing to reject the non-nonsensical answers of a wayward establishment and If you remain determined to continue asking the questions, then you are a scientist.


Michael

[sjw40364]

sjw,

Well, if a photon exists it would have to travel in a spiral IMO, everything does in one form or another.

I think you mean, a helix. I spiral is "cone" shaped, thus reducing to a point or expanding outwards. For example, a "spiral" staircase is a actually a misnomer, since the shape is a helix, it should really be called a helical staircase.

Michael

Yah, I'll go for that, just common usage to call it a spiral.

Agreed MV, no object can exist in all possible states until detected, just another fudge of standard cosmology.

I believe an electron's exact location can not be determined because contrary to common belief it is not a single particle, but billions of particles comprising what they term as the electron cloud orbit, no different than billions of suns circling the galaxy. Just a matter of scale.