Free Energy?

[bpwoods]

Re: Free Energy?

Ash, thanks for that 'nit pick'. Always useful to have a more constructive explanation. I was being deliberately brief. We have been here before, with Pons and Fleishman. I well rem my physics prof demolishing their scam. Best lecture we ever got!. Mind you, when he was interviewed by national radio about the matter, they lost interest the moment he announced it was a complete scam. Truth or the news! Much easier to publish pap than to sit down and compose a thoughtful explanation. Where is Feynman when you need him? Thanks again.

Brian.

[ASH]

Re: Free Energy?

In essense, on your side there is the belief that the electrons are stationary; whereas, on mine; I believe they are always in constant motion as they form a part of the structure of the proton itself.

It would be more precise to say that the conventional view is that the electrons are always moving, but their motion through space is not a major contributor to ferromagnetic properties. When I talk about the electrons "distributing themselves in space" in a way that minimizes the energy of the system, that would seem to imply stationary electrons occupying specific locations, so I see where I was unclear. In this case, the charge distribution associated with the electrons is stationary, but the electrons can have angular momentum without moving from their places. Electrons in atoms can have both orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum (although there are valid electron states in atoms with no orbital angular momentum, the spin angular momentum is a fundamental property of electrons, including free electrons that aren't in atoms). Conceptually, orbital angular momentum results from something like the motion of the electron through space, around the atomic nucleus, whereas spin angular momentum results from something like the rotation of the electron about its own axis.^* Orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum give electrons in atoms two different magnetic moments, but the spin magnetic moment is primarily responsible for ferromagnetism. The spin angular momentum could be thought of as a type of motion in some general sense, but nothing to do with physical motion of the electron through the material.

Here in the UK I am right now working on the construction of what may prove to be a part of the eventual proof of which of us is correct; I will keep you posted.

I'm curious why you'd discount the prior data on atomic and nuclear structure. One thing they did 100 years ago was direct a stream of alpha particles at a thin sheet of gold foil, and collect statistics on the scattering behavior to determine the spatial distribution of mass inside the gold atoms. Are you suspicious that Rutherford and his descendants with the big atom-smashers and particle colliders, including those who experimentally verified the quark structure of the proton starting in 1968, were all dry-labbing?

^* Note the "weasel-wording" about how orbital and spin angular momenta are "like" motion in space or rotation about an axis. This is a case in which the mental picture conjured up by a little ball orbiting a central point and spinning on its axis provides good physical intuition about what is going on, yet does not really match the state of affairs described by the math. The mathematical description of an electron in an atom with some orbital angular momentum around the nucleus actually describes a stationary distribution of charge in which the electron is smeared out over an extended volume. The wave function for the state can be factored into radial and angular functions, and the angular function for states with orbital angular momentum that is "like" circulation of the electron around a central point have factors of exp(i m phi), where phi is the azimuthal angle and m is the number of quantized units of orbital angular momentum associated with the state. In other words, the only thing that "orbits" (changes as a function of the azimuthal angle) is a factor affecting the phase of the wave function, but not its magnitude. Also, there are states which have a non-zero value of orbital angular momentum, yet m in the phase factor is 0, so there isn't any "orbital" progression of the phase factor in the sense just described -- there's orbital angular momentum, but ain't nothing 'orbiting', not even phase.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Free Energy?

I do not in any way discount the previous work; I simply have another interpretation.

It is true that a major part of my own thinking has presented me with the difficulty of being unable to fund the development of the visualisations of what I can see in my minds eye. Indeed, that has meant that where I had intended to add several chapters to my e-book; I instead decided to concentrate upon my thinking for The capital Spillway Trust as perhaps a better route towards some funding. Now I have set out a demonstration of a previous very controversial part of the debate that was created by a very famous British scientist, Eric Laithwaite in his Royal Institution Christmas lectures which you may Google under the added term Heretic.

It is the actual structure of the proton that is at issue, not the resulting mathematical explanations for the observations.

[ASH]

Re: Free Energy?

It is the actual structure of the proton that is at issue, not the resulting mathematical explanations for the observations.

To make a theological/philosophical statement -- I don't believe there is a meaningful distinction between the "actual" structure of a proton and the math that describes it. I believe that fundamental physical reality is math. That doesn't mean I think we have developed the math required to describe all of physical reality, or that there aren't plenty of mathematical models which only approximate real behavior, or that everything that exists within math have expressions in physical reality. What I'm saying is that rather than "inventing" mathematics to describe physical reality, the reality we observe is itself fundamentally mathematical, and through our observations we are discovering which bits of math are instantiated by physical reality; rather than coming up with mathematical models that approximate some underlying physical reality, we are coming up with mathematical models that approximate the underlying, precise math. I was led to this theological (not scientific) conclusion by three observations.

First, math, logic, and consistency are closely connected. So while math doesn't tell you what is true, it does tell you what can be true, in order to be logically consistent with other true statements under a particular set of mathematical rules. In this sense, math is deeply connected to a concept of reality rooted in self-consistency. One "real" thing cannot rule-out another "real" thing; something is "unreal" if it cannot be.

Second, in many important cases, the math which well describes physical reality was invented prior to discovery of the phenomena it was found to describe. In other words, although not every mathematical system finds expression in physical reality, we have formulated math based solely upon abstract ideas about logic and consistency, and later found that physical reality conforms to that "abstract" math. To me, the order of discovery here implies that the math is fundamental to physical reality, and not just an abstraction that we designed to model reality.

Third, the more you understand about how physics works, the more you appreciate that a lot of things happen for strictly mathematical reasons. You find that some physical objects or systems, or aspects thereof, behave precisely like mathematical objects, and that their physical behavior is constrained by the mathematical rules necessary to ensure consistency within the corresponding branch of math. Very often, the only explanation (not "description") of a physical phenomenon amounts to a mathematical rule required for logical consistency.

Anyway, I'm not sure there is any distinction between what we imply by the word "reality" and math, except that there are a lot of internally self-consistent systems of math out there, and we occupy only one reality. The way I'd put it, in order to be "real", something has to be "mathematical" -- by definition! But that doesn't mean all mathematical things are real.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Free Energy?

Let me give you one single example of where I believe there are discrepancies between your mathematical world and mine.

In your world, the free electron is a displaced, "stripped" if you like, entity; in mine it has been conventionally electromagnetically induced by the movement of the external electromagnetic force field attachments surrounding the individual atoms making up the structure of the mass that is experiencing the increased activity of those electrons.

And, if you are going to say that is incorrect and that all the mathematics tell you I am wrong; then explain this statements made in public on a major BBC TV programme:

"There is something spooky about this standard model. It doesn't really work. So we know there is something sick in our theory" Nobel Prize winner, Leon M. Lederman, CERN.

"For example, we have at the moment what we call a Standard Model of particle physics. Works great. Only one small problem. If you write down the equations of this model, it would seem to suggest that no particle could have any mass. Clearly that's not true" Prof. John Ellis, CERN.

Taken from: The Big Bang Machine, BBC4 TV, September 2008.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/cont..._feature.shtml


(Taken from the small preface to Part 4, The Proton, electron and nucleosynthesis, The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus Proton Energy e-book). The book is currently not available. No one will review it and as it detracted from my work on job creation with the Capital Spillway Trust; AND the web site was being consistently hit on from all over China and I want to develop these ideas of mine here in the UK, I stopped selling the book.

[ASH]

Re: Free Energy?

Let me give you one single example of where I believe there are discrepancies between your mathematical world and mine.

In your world, the free electron is a displaced, "stripped" if you like, entity; in mine it has been conventionally electromagnetically induced by the movement of the external electromagnetic force field attachments surrounding the individual atoms making up the structure of the mass that is experiencing the increased activity of those electrons.

Insofar as free electrons can be experimentally isolated as discrete particles that exist separate from atoms (for instance, in an old school TV), and have a measurable mass as independent particles, I don't see how the idea that they are an induced phenomenon (induced in what?) is consistent with observation. This isn't a question of math; this is a question of empirical observation. And there is no discrepancy between what is observed empirically and the conventional mathematical treatment.

And, if you are going to say that is incorrect and that all the mathematics tell you I am wrong; then explain this statements made in public on a major BBC TV programme:

"There is something spooky about this standard model. It doesn't really work. So we know there is something sick in our theory" Nobel Prize winner, Leon M. Lederman, CERN.

"For example, we have at the moment what we call a Standard Model of particle physics. Works great. Only one small problem. If you write down the equations of this model, it would seem to suggest that no particle could have any mass. Clearly that's not true" Prof. John Ellis, CERN.

In the article you link, Lederman is talking about experiments at the LHC designed to find the Higgs boson, which is actually the part of the Standard Model that accounts for mass. It would be more correct to say that the parts of the Standard Model which have already been observed work great, but can't explain why any particles have mass, and that the Standard Model predicts on mathematical grounds the existence of the Higgs boson, which the LHC was constructed to find. If the LHC does in fact find the Higgs boson within the range of energy predicted by the theoreticians, it will be a triumph for the particular math used to construct the Standard Model.

In any case, regardless of whether the Higgs boson is found and the Standard Model confirmed, the Standard Model is known to be incomplete. For one thing, even if the Standard Model explains how particles acquire mass, the gravitational consequences of that mass presently have to be understood using general relativity. And although both the Standard Model and general relativity are fundamentally mathematical, they are mathematically incompatible with each other as presently formulated, so even though the two theories describe the parts of reality to which they respectively pertain with exquisite precision, we're still missing a single mathematical framework covering those phenomena. Moreover, we've inferred from astronomical measurements the existence of new types of matter and new forces which we know aren't treated by either the Standard Model or general relativity. However, as I wrote above, our incomplete discovery of the math describing physical reality does not contradict the proposition that physical behavior is fundamentally mathematical behavior. Further, the incompleteness of existing theory is not grounds for accepting any particular new theory, unless the new theory (1) describes all known phenomena at least as accurately as the previous theory, and (2) makes correct predictions about previously unobserved phenomena. Given the vast scope of the phenomena that are already understood by existing theory, for which experimental data matches existing theory within the limits of our ability to measure, it is a very tall order to formulate an equally accurate or predictive theory that doesn't look a lot like the current theory. That's why even the "revolutionary" theories of the 20th century -- quantum mechanics and relativity -- contain the preceding theories within them. They don't so much contradict the prior understanding as reveal that prior understanding to be a special case, or approximation, of a more detailed understanding. And I suspect that is why your truly different take on the structure of matter faces headwinds from establishment types -- it isn't intuitively apparent how a description of the structure of matter that is so fundamentally different from the conventional picture can be consistent with known observations, or equally predictive, so establishment types probably don't try very hard to understand what you have to say in support of that consistency and predictivity.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Free Energy?

Then we must both wait for the presentation of results that contradict the established view. Something that just might be possible very shortly.