Electromagnetism: quantum mechanics or vortices?

river said:
Farsight isn't about the math but is about the physical model or picture
Click to expand...
That simply is not true. At the level of detail that Farsight wants to talk about, if one does not have at least a basic understanding of the math, then one cannot have any understanding of the physical model or picture. Farsight regularly says things that do not seem like they can be true, he regularly states things that he knows the contemporary physics community rejects, and he presents these things as if they were facts. He even says things about his clear hero, Einstein, that Einstein explicitly denied.

Farsight is attempting to create a zone of influence and respect for himself, like any con man or evangelist, and the truth or evidence is secondary to creating this zone of influence. While I suspect that sometimes he writes things that are clearly wrong (e.g., about the contents of his own writing) because I fear that it is part of a mental illness, I also believe that often he lies because he simply does not care about presenting evidence and he believes that the lie would be more expedient to getting some people to believe him.

Farsight seems to view those who have studied physics as part of a conspiracy to both avoid the true physics and hide its existence. Farsight claims that, somehow, he has gained an understanding of all of physics even though he has never seriously studied any of it. That kind of thinking is not reasonable or healthy and it should not be encouraged.
 
origin said:
QM works pretty well actually, the computer you are using is an example.


Complete and utter nonsense.


And some more nonsense
Click to expand...

Responding to comment that "QM works well" (because we have such things as computers, etc.) -However, "physics" properly also includes forces as they behave in cosmic regions, and there, I submit, QM/Relativity/"Big Bang" is leading us nowhere. To properly understand cosmological forces, one should begin with a reasonable "origin" framework (no pun intended), not with a framework that "happens to" function well in our quantum setting. -Physics started to go wrong when it accepted the Michelson-Morley view that experimental absence of a wind-"drag" effect meant there is no ether. (Then, physicists like Einstein started coming up with models for how the universe could work without a medium to transmit forces.) (If an ether medium exists that does not behave inertially, the MMX null-result does not rule out an ether.)

I have a Thread on the Forum that describes how an energic ether could have arisen from Original Space (a type of space prior to the first appearance of forces, a type of space that no longer exists), via oscillation of spatial point-localities (perfectly symmetric oscillations, where the reciprocity distance parameters were not infinite, leading to "finite" point localities throughout all of space.) Then, oscillational fatigue of a pair of adjacent "points" produced a "Yin and Yang" point-pair, which broke the perfect symmetry of space. That "disturbance" was then propagated through all of space, producing a uniform unit-based type of space in which the "oscillations" transitioned to "vibrations," producing an underlying universal etheric energy matrix composed of identical ether units. -This would be a suitable model for producing the uniform, atom-based, kind of world we have now. -Of course, the QM forces we utilize in our earthbound quantized setting work, via their familiar spin/vector, etc. modes of action. -But to account for phenomena like "action at a distance" (which QM is calling "quantum entanglemet"), there has to be an underlying energy matrix that acts via a different (vibrational) mode of action, to transmit resonational forces between quantum units that are closely alike.


Of course, if we don't "really need" understand energy at the cosmological level, I suppose QM can suffice.
 
Michael Anteski said:
Responding to comment that "QM works well" (because we have such things as computers, etc.) -However, "physics" properly also includes forces as they behave in cosmic regions, and there, I submit, QM/Relativity/"Big Bang" is leading us nowhere.
Click to expand...
QM is primarily concerned with the very small so does not apply much to the cosmic level. The theory of relativity has led to a much deeper understanding of cosmology. The big bang theory was directly deduced from observation and many of the predictions of the theory have been shown to be correct. So your pronouncemnt that it is leading us now where is rather odd.
To properly understand cosmological forces, one should begin with a reasonable "origin" framework (no pun intended), not with a framework that "happens to" function well in our quantum setting.
Click to expand...
What do you mean 'Quantum Setting' that doesn't even make any sense.
-Physics started to go wrong when it accepted the Michelson-Morley view that experimental absence of a wind-"drag" effect meant there is no ether. (Then, physicists like Einstein started coming up with models for how the universe could work without a medium to transmit forces.) (If an ether medium exists that does not behave inertially, the MMX null-result does not rule out an ether.)
Click to expand...
The fact that the speed of light is constant in all frames certainly does seem to rule out an ether.
I have a Thread on the Forum that describes how an energic ether could have arisen from Original Space (a type of space prior to the first appearance of forces, a type of space that no longer exists), via oscillation of spatial point-localities (perfectly symmetric oscillations, where the reciprocity distance parameters were not infinite, leading to "finite" point localities throughout all of space.) Then, oscillational fatigue of a pair of adjacent "points" produced a "Yin and Yang" point-pair, which broke the perfect symmetry of space. That "disturbance" was then propagated through all of space, producing a uniform unit-based type of space in which the "oscillations" transitioned to "vibrations," producing an underlying universal etheric energy matrix composed of identical ether units. -This would be a suitable model for producing the uniform, atom-based, kind of world we have now. -Of course, the QM forces we utilize in our earthbound quantized setting work, via their familiar spin/vector, etc. modes of action. -But to account for phenomena like "action at a distance" (which QM is calling "quantum entanglemet"), there has to be an underlying energy matrix that acts via a different (vibrational) mode of action, to transmit resonational forces between quantum units that are closely alike.
Click to expand...
Arm waving and the use of sciency sounding words does not actually make a theory.
Of course, if we don't "really need" understand energy at the cosmological level, I suppose QM can suffice.
Click to expand...
Actual scientists that have actual educations are striving hard to understand energy at the cosmic level. Considering that the majority of the energy in the universe is an unknown type of energy (dark energy) this is kind of a big area of study.
Meanwhile guys like you can 'wax poetic' about discarded and invalidated theories such as ether using half understood physics on internet forums.
 
origin said:
QM is primarily concerned with the very small so does not apply much to the cosmic level. The theory of relativity has led to a much deeper understanding of cosmology. The big bang theory was directly deduced from observation and many of the predictions of the theory have been shown to be correct. So your pronouncemnt that it is leading us now where is rather odd.

What do you mean 'Quantum Setting' that doesn't even make any sense.

The fact that the speed of light is constant in all frames certainly does seem to rule out an ether.

Arm waving and the use of sciency sounding words does not actually make a theory.

Actual scientists that have actual educations are striving hard to understand energy at the cosmic level. Considering that the majority of the energy in the universe is an unknown type of energy (dark energy) this is kind of a big area of study.
Meanwhile guys like you can 'wax poetic' about discarded and invalidated theories such as ether using half understood physics on internet forums.
Click to expand...

origin,

I have just posted a reply to an existing Thread, "Spooky Action at a Distance," that goes into more detail than the above, as to how my ether-framework could better explain "action at a distance" than the consensus QM</Relativity model.
 
Michael Anteski said:
origin,

I have just posted a reply to an existing Thread, "Spooky Action at a Distance," that goes into more detail than the above, as to how my ether-framework could better explain "action at a distance" than the consensus QM</Relativity model.
Click to expand...
Thats nice. Got to get back to work using that crappy old mainstream science.
 
Ordinary semiconductors Phsyics cannot account for hall effects in p-doped Si2 or in depleted n-Si2 in the Pmos. If it does, it gets a paradox in the hot carrier phenomena.


The movement of an hole makes no B. It must be generated by a sequence of electrons springing one after the other into the hole left free by the last electron which has moved to the precedent hole position.

Indeed an electron must pass from rest to high speed and rest very suddenly.

To account for the measured B to be consistent with the H.A.Lorent equation.

Under the assumption that the cross section of the process is big enough accordingly to quantum mechanics, such process could be an explanation of the Hall effects for holes.



But if in that fraction of time that they are moving they are that fast, stochastic collision cannot be excluded.


Let's bear this in mind and consider the hot carrier stress


In a nmos, the hot electrons, fast moving electrons, get scattered into the SiO2.


In a pmos, the “fast into-hole springing” electrons do not get scattered into SiO2.

Indeed what happens is a so called injections of holes into SiO2.

So these fast-springing-electrons attracts electrons from SiO2.


Quite a paradox, at least.

(Pmos =P-channel CMOS. P-channel are N-doped, but the drain current happens under so called inversion conditions, when in the channel holes are presents, as the electron have been swept away by the negative gate voltage.)


Possible solution:

Dr. A. S. Allen at the London Physical Society in 1919 presented a collection of studies of ther scientists about the ring electron.

In 1921, writing about the anglar momentum of the r.e., he presented an simplified derivations of the interpretation of Mc. Laren (Died on the west front in 1916) for the Planck' constant (Number of tubes electric.inducti. * number of tubes magnetic ind.).


Sir. J.J.Thomson in 1919 and 1921 used the magnetic electron for rigid atoms, like Allen in 1919 referring to G.N. Lewis.


Qiu-Hong Hu (University of Göteborg) made available on the internet in 2005 an essay “The Nature of the Electron”, explaining in §4.13 that high-energy scattering revel the electron as point-like due to Lorentz Transformation.


D. L. Bergman in 2004 claimed having fitted any kidn of experimental data with the ring-electron model evolution called “Helicon Model”.


That is enough to guess, that atoms are rigid, with vibrating shells where Magentons (A.L. Parson 1915), that is to say ring-electrons/helicon electrons stays.

A hole in Si2 rends a outer shell not stable.


Not stable are also the atoms nearby.


Proposed way to got for the hot-carrier-stress of holes.

======================================


Magnetically coupled pair of ring-electrons from two atoms make the binding of the atoms.


If there si an hole on a Si, there is an uncoupled electron in the atom nearby.


1) The situation is not stable and the uncoupled electron can have so much energy to kick-out a bounded electron from its bonding with the electron of the atom with the hole. They have the same mass. They exchange the momentum, and nothing acting radially to this momentum can avoid that.

Therefore now the hole is in a different position in the same atom.


2) But it could also happen, that a electron if so close to the position of the atom with the hole, that he gets bond to such atom (Ideally possible that no work has been done).


Interpretation:

===========

The holes current works not with quantum jumps form one atom to the other, but with a continuum of electrons flow from one atom to another.

Bending the Si2 crystal you can make easier such flow(P-doped), but more difficult the movement of the free electron (N-doped). And maybe viceversa with an opposite or orthogonal bending.


Indeed it is known, the mechanical stress has opposite effect of the mobility of electrons and holes.



HOLE INJECTION IN PMOS HOT CARRIER STRESS

=== ===== ====== ===== ====== ===== ===

In the hot-hole process of the hot carrier stress the described oscillations near the sio2 make it unstable too.


Energy will be exchanged among the two reticles.


The oscillating energy can be locally that high, that an electron of the SiO2 gets so closed to the Si with the hole, that it gets caught.

Chances are there, that it will never come back. And so one can say that a hole have been injected into the SiO2.


This could be the end of the band theory for the holes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top