Archive for January, 2014

Extended TBS Experiment at NIST

This sounds very interesting, several scholars now have a good grasp of ECE theory.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 31/01/2014 17:49:07 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Masurement of B(3)

Hi Myron
Currently I am trying to get the extended TBS (Tight Bound State) experiment done at NIST in Washington which has all the needed equipment. It predicts 3 new spectrtal lines in hydrogen. I believe ECE theory may help facilitate the experiment
Best
Richard

I have a few remarks as follows. The B(3) field is easily measurable in material matter in a number of ways as reviewed for example in UFT200 and UFT100. It was inferred originally from the inverse Faraday effect, so was based on data from inception. This is why Vigier accepted it immediately in late 1992. The Heisenberg indeterminacy is rejected entirely by the AIAS group because it has been refuted experimentally many times by the Croca group, by up to nine orders fo magnitude, and because it has been refuted theoretically in UFT175. See Croca’s book “Towards a Nonlinear Quantum Physics” in my series “Contemporary Chemical Physics”. It was replaced in UFT13. The B(3) field is phaseless and propagates in the vacuum. I think that your experiments refer to the vacuum B(3) field. It is well known that radiative corrections indicate the presence of oscillating potentials in the vacuum, but even the radiative corrections must be measured by interaction with matter. Notwithstanding our rejection of indeterminacy, your series of experiments looks very interesting. Have any of them been carried out? More generally ECE theory manifests itself in many ways not given by standard physics, so do all theories of electrodynamics which use higher topology. I would argue that a massless photon is a mathematical absurdity of no significance to physics. As you know, the Paris School refer to the photon as propagating at c for all practical purposes. The inverse Faraday effect was first observed by van der Ziel et al at Harvard in the mid sixties, and since then has been observed many times. It is a longitudinal magnetization induced by a circularly polarized electromagnetic field. In the pre B(3) era it was interpreted through the conjugate product A(1) x A(2) of vacuum potentials, where A(1) x A(2) = A x A*. It is a very small effect mediated by a hyperpolarizability. In volume 1 of the first edition of Evans and Kielich, “Modern Nonlinear Optics”, Advances in Chemical Physics volume 85(1), (1992, reprinted 1993 and 1997), there is a review of the inverse Faraday effect by Zawody, with about 150 references. The obsolete standard physics asserted that A(1) and A(2) existed in the vacuum, but not A(0) or A(3). This absurdity has been refuted many times over in my Omnia Opera since 1992. There is a section on www.aias.us called “Omnia Opera”, which can be accessed by clicking “Myron Evans”. It contains all the source material.

.

I hope this prose rendition is conceptually understandable. Regarding the difficulty of empirically measuring the B(3) field. I suggest it is masked by the Copenhagen uncertainty principle. Do you think this is a valid argument: If the photon was massless c would be infinite?
I have developed a ‘continuous-state’ cosmology. Beginning with work I did with Vigier on integrating gravity & electomagnetism (The paper is in the 2000 Berkeley Vigier III conference proceedings). Vigier chose to ‘fix’ one of the coordinate systems and then use the Dirac polarized vacuum to perform the G-EM integration. Some years later utiizing an idea by Kafatos where R-dot = c (the rate of change of scale in the universe) applied not to a Big Bang expansion but instead internalized to a ‘continuous-state’ process, I then alternated the fixing of the G-EM coordinates. One salient interpretaion was that photon mass was not uniform, but periodic – occuring only during a moment of vacuum coupling (with the standard idea of internal motion). Thus photon mass oscillates from zero to a mass moment (This paper is in the 2nd Vigier proceedings). To my way of thinking one could derive a ‘beat frequency of spacetime based on this oscillation.
For our purposes the B(3) field would be zero at moment of zero photon mass and difficult to measure empirically without this understanding.
In the 8th Vigier proceedings I have designed several experiments to measure/mediate the B(3) field by utilizing a polarized Dirac vacuum resonance hierarchy that surmounts the uncertainty problem. In this model wave-particle duality is elevated to a principle of cosmology. Without this concatenation of postulates the experiment would putatively not work. It is a 12D model utilizing extensions of Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation and the de-Broglie-Bohm-Vigier Causal Interpretation. It (the Continuous-state) also relies heavily on Calabi-Yau mirror symmetry.
Now regarding reduction to absurdity. M-Theorists seek one unique 4D compactification. Regarding myron’s comment (in terms of contact geometry) in the 12D continuous-state (C-S)process there is a ‘spin-exchange C-S dimensional reduction process’ alternating even to odd D. 12D to 0D and back with inherent flips of Riemann sphere topology. M-Theory is now cast in 11D the 12thD here is like a super quantum potential or pilot wave synonymous with the Unified Field.
As the tools of quantum mechanics were invisible to classical mechanics so have the tools of unified field mechanics been invisible quantum mechanics. This addition to Evans model promises empirical access to the 3rd regime of reality

Advertisements

3D vector graphics

These look very good, I am currently preparing note 257(3) which will develop the Beltrami equation in electrodynamics, giving the correct phase factor when photon mass is incorporated, expressing the d’Alembertian in terms of the Beltrami equation, and suggesting generalizations. Then in further notes I will look at the mathematics of how B(3) comes out of a helicoidal flow. Plane waves are of course just models with infinite lateral extent.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 31/01/2014 11:32:15 GMT Standard Time
Subj: 3D vector graphics

Graphics examples of a vector field

v = (vr, vtheta, vz) = (0, sin(r), cos(r0-r))

in cylindrical coordinates. In the projected X-Y plane the vectors v (red) and curl(v) (black) are parallel, but not in a 3D view, see second image. This is not a Beltrami field, but v and curl(v) are parallel at some places. It is difficult to find a good perspective, best is to rotate the view in computer, then you get the best spatial impression.

Horst

Don Reed’s paper on the Bose-Einstein Condensate

Many thanks! I had not seen this paper and I see that it mentions the Rossi reactor. Donald Reed is one of those original minds that are automatically sidelined by the self styled experts, who also sidelined Einstein and de Broglie. In this case I guess that Reed was condemned for cold fusion, now an industrial reality. UFT226 ff. deal with LENR. UFT225 demolishes the Higgs boson completely. No one has objected to any of these papers.

Sent: 30/01/2014 19:41:37 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Don Reed's paper on the Bose-Einstein Condensate

Perhaps you would find Reed’s other paper on viXra.org of interest too? Here goes.

Rgds,
Axel

1206.0058v2.pdf

Masurement of B(3)

I have a few remarks as follows. The B(3) field is easily measurable in material matter in a number of ways as reviewed for example in UFT200 and UFT100. It was inferred originally from the inverse Faraday effect, so was based on data from inception. This is why Vigier accepted it immediately in late 1992. The Heisenberg indeterminacy is rejected entirely by the AIAS group because it has been refuted experimentally many times by the Croca group, by up to nine orders fo magnitude, and because it has been refuted theoretically in UFT175. See Croca’s book “Towards a Nonlinear Quantum Physics” in my series “Contemporary Chemical Physics”. It was replaced in UFT13. The B(3) field is phaseless and propagates in the vacuum. I think that your experiments refer to the vacuum B(3) field. It is well known that radiative corrections indicate the presence of oscillating potentials in the vacuum, but even the radiative corrections must be measured by interaction with matter. Notwithstanding our rejection of indeterminacy, your series of experiments looks very interesting. Have any of them been carried out? More generally ECE theory manifests itself in many ways not given by standard physics, so do all theories of electrodynamics which use higher topology. I would argue that a massless photon is a mathematical absurdity of no significance to physics. As you know, the Paris School refer to the photon as propagating at c for all practical purposes. The inverse Faraday effect was first observed by van der Ziel et al at Harvard in the mid sixties, and since then has been observed many times. It is a longitudinal magnetization induced by a circularly polarized electromagnetic field. In the pre B(3) era it was interpreted through the conjugate product A(1) x A(2) of vacuum potentials, where A(1) x A(2) = A x A*. It is a very small effect mediated by a hyperpolarizability. In volume 1 of the first edition of Evans and Kielich, “Modern Nonlinear Optics”, Advances in Chemical Physics volume 85(1), (1992, reprinted 1993 and 1997), there is a review of the inverse Faraday effect by Zawody, with about 150 references. The obsolete standard physics asserted that A(1) and A(2) existed in the vacuum, but not A(0) or A(3). This absurdity has been refuted many times over in my Omnia Opera since 1992. There is a section on www.aias.us called “Omnia Opera”, which can be accessed by clicking “Myron Evans”. It contains all the source material.

.

I hope this prose rendition is conceptually understandable. Regarding the difficulty of empirically measuring the B(3) field. I suggest it is masked by the Copenhagen uncertainty principle. Do you think this is a valid argument: If the photon was massless c would be infinite?
I have developed a ‘continuous-state’ cosmology. Beginning with work I did with Vigier on integrating gravity & electomagnetism (The paper is in the 2000 Berkeley Vigier III conference proceedings). Vigier chose to ‘fix’ one of the coordinate systems and then use the Dirac polarized vacuum to perform the G-EM integration. Some years later utiizing an idea by Kafatos where R-dot = c (the rate of change of scale in the universe) applied not to a Big Bang expansion but instead internalized to a ‘continuous-state’ process, I then alternated the fixing of the G-EM coordinates. One salient interpretaion was that photon mass was not uniform, but periodic – occuring only during a moment of vacuum coupling (with the standard idea of internal motion). Thus photon mass oscillates from zero to a mass moment (This paper is in the 2nd Vigier proceedings). To my way of thinking one could derive a ‘beat frequency of spacetime based on this oscillation.
For our purposes the B(3) field would be zero at moment of zero photon mass and difficult to measure empirically without this understanding.
In the 8th Vigier proceedings I have designed several experiments to measure/mediate the B(3) field by utilizing a polarized Dirac vacuum resonance hierarchy that surmounts the uncertainty problem. In this model wave-particle duality is elevated to a principle of cosmology. Without this concatenation of postulates the experiment would putatively not work. It is a 12D model utilizing extensions of Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation and the de-Broglie-Bohm-Vigier Causal Interpretation. It (the Continuous-state) also relies heavily on Calabi-Yau mirror symmetry.
Now regarding reduction to absurdity. M-Theorists seek one unique 4D compactification. Regarding myron’s comment (in terms of contact geometry) in the 12D continuous-state (C-S)process there is a ‘spin-exchange C-S dimensional reduction process’ alternating even to odd D. 12D to 0D and back with inherent flips of Riemann sphere topology. M-Theory is now cast in 11D the 12thD here is like a super quantum potential or pilot wave synonymous with the Unified Field.
As the tools of quantum mechanics were invisible to classical mechanics so have the tools of unified field mechanics been invisible quantum mechanics. This addition to Evans model promises empirical access to the 3rd regime of reality

Daily Report 29-30/1/14

On 29/1/14 there were 2229 hits from 462 distinct visits, spiders from baidu, google, MSN and softlayer, Auto1 200, Auto2 91, Overview of ECE 123, Book of Scientometrics 73, Evans Equations 65 (English), numerous (Spanish), CEFE 63, Englynion (Book of Poetry in Welsh and English) 28, Second Book of Poetry 15, Autosonnets 12, Autoarchive 10 to date in January 2014. The Catholic University of America Overview, UFT1, UFT2, UFT255, University of Poitiers general, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi UFT166, Indian Railways UFT200, National University of Singapore FAQ, CV Autobiography Volume One. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for January 2014.

Usage Statistics for aias.us aias.us

Summary Period: January 2014 – URL
Generated 30-Jan-2014 09:30 EST

FOR POSTING : UFT256 Sections 1 and 2 and Accompanying Notes

Many thanks!

The High Order Topological Electrodynamicists

Agreed about Donald Reed’s article, there is also a paper by Barrett, and also by Lehnert. Harmuth, Barrett and Lehnert (with Roy) produced books in my series “Contemporary Chemical Physics” on higher order topologies in electrodynamics. Those of us who attended the Craig y Nos Castle conference in 2008 will remember the excellent lecture by Horwitz, who mentioned B(3) as an example of higher order topology. This group of electrodynamicists all went ahead of the standard model and all produced variations on B(3). Reed cites Moses (1971) who was the first to realize that any vector field must be built up of (1), (2) and (3) components, not just (1) and (2). Reed mentions Cartan calculus, in which ((1), (2), (3)) may be superimposed on the Cartesian basis. All this work is far ahead of the standard model, which still uses a U(1) sector symmetry for electrodynamics. After I had produced volume 119, the eminent editor Stuart Rice (University of Chicago) was also attacked by the same people who attacked by the equally eminent Alwyn van der Merwe (University of Denver). The behaviour of these attackers was outrageous therefore, and they have already been condemned by history as the scientometrics show

Sent: 30/01/2014 14:03:26 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Copy of the Reed chapter from Steve Bannister and University of Utah

Doug, it is indeed a good paper. I think we should find out by graphics what the difference between the curl and a rotation vector is for a vector field. This would be a great benefit for understanding in engineering.

Horst

Doug Lindstrom hat am 30. Januar 2014 um 14:50 geschrieben:

This is an interesting paper and will take a while to digest it. It is pleasing to note that he included the B(3) field in his studies (p561).

Doug

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 1:29 AM, <EMyrone> wrote:

I am most grateful to Steve for this, not least because it contains very nice illustrations of Beltrami flow and goes in to higher topology electrodynamics and phenomena in plasma physics not explicable by the standard model. I agree that I should not put it on the blog because of copyright and is being distributed to scholars for their private use. This is from M. W. Evans Ed., “Modern Nonlinear Optics”, a special topical issue of I. Prigogine and S. A. Rice (Eds.) “Advances in Chemical Physics” (Wiley Interscience, New York, 2001, second edition), volume 119(3). This will be in any good library. It is an award winning production in six volumes and two editions. The first edition was edited by Stanislaw Kielich and myself.

To: EMyrone
Sent: 29/01/2014 20:15:34 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Reed chapter

Hello Myron. I don’t know if this duplicates the link that was sent out earlier, so I thought, since my research dept. found it, I would forward it on. Since I got this through the University, it probably should not go on the blog, but just to people who may need it.

Best,

Steve