return to homepage
The Electromagnetic Field The standard model still doesn’t have any clear idea of what causes either the electric or the magnetic field. QED has finally come to the realization that the E/M field must be mediated by photons in a physical field, which is a great advance over classical models that treated the field in a completely abstract manner. But newer theories still tend to dive off into non-physical or non-mechanical waters in a heartbeat, whenever something can’t be explained easily. The best example of this is the messenger particle, one of these mediating photons of the E/M field that can cause either attraction or repulsion (depending on the fonts etched upon the faces of the photons, one supposes). If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.
return to updates
(and the Strong Force)
by Miles Mathis
This short paper is meant to fill this theoretical gap to some extent, by taking some of my findings that are buried in other papers and collecting them here, under one heading. The first of these is found in my paper on Superposition, where I show that stacked spins cause the wave motion of the particle. I also showed that the way the spins are stacked explains the mysteries of superposition, including all the various experimental "paradoxes." I show that they are not paradoxes, they are just poorly defined experiments with poorly defined particles. Once we apply gyroscopic exclusion rules to the spins, we find that each spin must be outside the influence of inner spins. So that, for example, an x-spin of R around the radius must create a y-spin of 2R and a z-spin of 4R. The three spins can’t all be about equivalent axes, and no one has noticed this before me.
These stacked spins cause the particle's linear motion to wobble, and this wobble is the wave. Given the y and z axes, we have two more wobbles, one external to and independent of the other. One wobble creates the electric field, the other creates the magnetic field. This is because the particle is emitting radiation all the time. This radiation is emitted spherically, but the main wobble affects the radiation in the same way it affects the linear motion of the particle. The emitted field of photons carries both secondary wobbles with it, so that we have waves in three separate dimensions. We have the main wave caused by the wobble itself, and this wave is a characteristic of the linear motion of the particle itself. Then we have two waves in the emission field. The two secondary waves are caused by the first, and the first is caused by the stacked spins.
Any simple analysis of spins stacked in this way must show that they are orthogonal to eachother. If the first spin is axial about the x-axis, then the second spin must be end-over-end about a y-axis tangent to the sphere. This is the only way to keep the second spin from interfering with the first gyroscopically (or the first with the second). The third spin must likewise be outside the influence of the inner two, which puts the z-axis tangent to the great sphere of y-spin. It is not only tangent, but orthogonal. The three axes must create the 6 right-angle directions. This explains the relationship of the magnetic field to the electrical field. It also explains the relationship of both fields to the motion of the particle itself, since the flux of both fields will be determined directly by the speed of the particle and its radius, as you see.
By this theory, a non-spinning particle could exist, but it would have no emission and no E/M field. It would also not travel as a wave. Because it had no emission field, it would have no repulsion in the vicinity of other particles, and would be ripe for collision or inclusion. It would not have a negative charge; it would have no charge. This may explain some phenomena not so far explained, or explained poorly.
These three spins can obviously vary in direction. The x-spin can be +x or –x, for instance. And a +x spin need not cause a +y spin. We have 8 possible combinations. We may assume that given a certain radius, one will be a positron and one will be an electron, but at that radius we have 6 other variations as well. At a first glance, the E/M field would appear to be more complex than we have so far allowed. According to my analysis, we have 8 possible E/M fields, not one.
+x+y+z
+x+y-z
+x-y-z
+x-y+z
-x+y+z
-x+y-z
-x-y+z
-x-y-z
This must also impact nuclear or chromodynamics, since once it is understood that the E/M field is caused by spin, it can be postulated that the components of the nucleus no longer spin relative to eachother. If it is assumed that the spins are transferred from the protons and neutrons to the nucleus as a whole, then the strong force no longer has to overcome an E/M repulsion. In other words, the nucleus spins, and this spin "charges" the nucleus relative to the orbiting electrons. The nucleus emits radiation. But the protons and neutrons inside do not spin. And they do not emit in the same way. They do not emit internally, only externally. The internal surfaces of the spheres are neutralized, and all the components of the nucleus act as a single sphere.
This must be, since a spinning nucleus would have only one center or axis. Again, due to gyroscopic rules, you cannot propose spins within spins arbitrarily. You cannot give a spin to the nucleus and then propose that the protons and neutrons are spinning inside it. The components of the nucleus—all the protons and neutrons—would re-center themselves about this great center, and the E/M field emission would then be a compound of their emissions. This compound emission would emit radially, and therefore it would not affect the members of the nucleus themselves. The E/M field of the nucleus would be effective only outside the nucleus, but never inside.
Therefore the strong force may be downgraded by many exponents. In fact, with no E/M field acting between nucleons, the strong force would then simply become an analogue of gravity at the quantum level.
I have explained how the dynamics works once the nucleons are in the nucleus, but how did they get there? I will be asked, with a smirk, "When, exactly, did the E/M field turn off?" Well, if we use my chart on nucleons, we find 8 different field possibilities for the proton (plus the neutron, which may have no spin, or which may be one of these 8). In other words, it may be that not all protons repel all other protons, (disregarding the anti-proton, which is probably one member of this list—and which cannot be more than four members of this list). A lot of these protons tied up in nuclei may be protons from this list that can come close enough to other protons for gravitational capture. In that case we would have "clumping" protons and non-clumping protons, relative to a given nuclear set-up.
You can see just by looking at the list that clumping and non-clumping are relative terms anyway. In the vicinity of one proton or nucleus, a given proton might be a clumper; but in the vicinity of another proton or nucleus, it would be a non-clumper. Each set of spins will react differently in the vicinity of another set of spins. This would explain why so much in quantum theory is unexplained, or explained only by ad hoc fixes.
If that is true, then we only have to assume that a nucleus is built in a certain order, using the right proton from the list at the right time. In fact, there would be a huge number of possible combinations, in creating any large nucleus. You just have to follow certain rules of sequence, you see.
For example, say we are conservative, and we want to cross off as many of these protons on the list as possible, as non-standard. We decide to arbitrarily throw out all the –x protons as anti-protons. We claim these annihilate protons, and so they will not be found in nuclei regardless. We still have four to work with. The –y-z protons and +y+z protons look like they would repel, and so do the –y+z and +y-z protons. But, if so, we still have to explain what the +y+z and +y-z protons do when they meet, or what about the –y-z and –y+z do when they meet? Or the +y-z and –y-z, or the +y+z and –y+z? QED has done nothing like this analysis, although it seems pretty basic to me. I suggest that some of these protons can enter nuclei with other protons, without standard-model strong force help. Since we know that nuclei are pretty easy to put together, it is much easier to postulate proton sequences like this than to postulate a strong force of such Herculean strength.
The standard-model strong force has never been analyzed rigorously for consistency, anyway. If the strong force drops off as fast as is claimed, in order to keep it from snagging nearby electrons, then it doesn’t explain nuclear creation at all. It is much less successful explaining nuclear creation than my quick theory here. Detractors of my theory will ask when my E/M field turns off, but I can turn the tables and ask when the strong force turns on. If its influence is limited to a radius of 10-15m, how do protons ever get close enough to call it up? The whole mechanism is a blatant contradiction, since if protons could get that close without the strong force, we wouldn’t need the strong force to explain them being that close. But in order to turn the strong force on, we have to bring them that close. Is no one embarrassed by this? It is not a paradox, it is just illogical reasoning. My mechanism may be incomplete, but it is not based on illogic.
It is not just illogic, it is ignoring all kinds of simple math. Given the current mass, charge, and maximum speed of the proton, there is no possible way to put two protons near enough for long enough to turn on the strong force. You will say that the Sun can create that force, from the outside, using pressure to crush the E/M field repulsion. Maybe, but then it would be the Sun, not the strong force, that overcomes the E/M field. To bring the Sun into the argument, you must believe that the E/M field inside the nucleus tends to bounce back after being crushed, necessitating the entry of the strong force to prevent it from bouncing back. But I can simply deny that. Why not just postulate that the Sun crushes the E/M field, squeezing it out of the newly created nucleus like orange juice? After the helium or whatever escapes the Sun, the E/M field stays out of the nucleus, because it is too tight to get back in. If the field turns back on, it does so only outside the nucleus, since that is where the spin turns back on. The whole idea of the strong force is unnecessary.
If you say that we still need the strong force to explain the energies required to split atoms in accelerators, I say that is false, too. Gravity is more than enough to explain those energies, once you recognize that gravity exists at the quantum level and has been drastically mis-sized there by the standard model. I have shown that Newton’s equation is a compound equation: that his inverse square law applies to the E/M field at the macro-level, not to gravity. Therefore gravity is 1020 times stronger at the quantum level than we have been told. If we combine this with my newly recalibrated E/M field (which also resists acceleration), then we have plenty of force available to explain fission energies, without recourse to the strong force at all.