Final Version of Note 407(1)

Version of Note 407(1)

Many thanks again and much appreciated!

I had noticed the error with alpha but had forgotten to mention it in my earlier email. Eq. 37 is a rally important result, and (43) gives a vivid explanation of alpha.

Horst

Am 11.05.2018 um 13:22 schrieb Myron Evans:

Subject: Final Version of Note 407(1)

This version corrects minor typographical errors in the original Note 407(1), the factor alpha should have been alpha squared in various equations. The corrected version gives the neat result (37). for the H atom v / c = alpha / n, a completely new result of quantum mechanics. Here n is the principal quantum number, v is the orbital velocity of the electron, alpha is the fine structure constant, and c the universal constant known as the speed of light in vacuo. It is immediately clear that the familiar H atom can be described relativistically, even though it is a solution of the supposedly non relativistic Schroedinger equation. Its Thomas half is given by Eq. (37). So the H atom is a Thomas precession. The AIAS is named after the fine structure constant, alpha. This final version will now be used to give a trivial refutation of the de Sitter precession in Note 407(3). By "trivial" I mean "very simple" but also of key importance to the whole of physics.

Advertisements

Final Version of Note 407(1)

Subject: Final Version of Note 407(1)

This version corrects minor typographical errors in the original Note 407(1), the factor alpha should have been alpha squared in various equations. The corrected version gives the neat result (37). for the H atom v / c = alpha / n, a completely new result of quantum mechanics. Here n is the principal quantum number, v is the orbital velocity of the electron, alpha is the fine structure constant, and c the universal constant known as the speed of light in vacuo. It is immediately clear that the familiar H atom can be described relativistically, even though it is a solution of the supposedly non relativistic Schroedinger equation. Its Thomas half is given by Eq. (37). So the H atom is a Thomas precession. The AIAS is named after the fine structure constant, alpha. This final version will now be used to give a trivial refutation of the de Sitter precession in Note 407(3). By "trivial" I mean "very simple" but also of key importance to the whole of physics.

a407thpapernotes1.pdf

Note 407(1): Thomas Precession in Planetary Orbits and the H Atom Orbitals

Note 407(1): Thomas Precession in Planetary Orbits and the H Atom Orbitals

Many thanks to Dr Horst Eckardt for pointing out that Note 407(1) is a remarkable result that shows that the "non relativistic" solutions of the Schroedinger equation are inherently relativistic and that the gamma factor is obtained a priori from rotation of the ECE2 covariant line element. He also points out that the standard model uses the idea of the Lorentz boost as being purely linear. As shown in Note 407(2), the "Thomas half" comes out of the commutator of boost matrices. This is also a new development because usually, the commutator of boost generators of the Lorentz group is used to give rotation generators. That procedure does not make clear that the Thomas half is given by a commutator of boost matrices. The Schroedinger equation is the non relativistic limit of the ECE2 fermion equation (the ECE2 covariant development of the Dirac equation), so it is natural (in retrospect) that the Schroedinger equation should also be relativistic. When I first derived this result a few days ago, it was a complete surprise. The ECE2 fermion equation gives spin orbit interaction, and also gives the Thomas factor of a half. Eq. (38) of Note 407(1) shows that the Thomas half enters into the description of the energy levels of the H atom. This is completely new to quantum mechanics.

Note 407(1): Thomas Precession in Planetary Orbits and the H Atom Orbitals

This is a highly interesting result that the energy levels of the H atom are directly related to Thomas precession. This shows that even the "non-relativistic" Schr̦dinger solutions are inherently "relativistic". The appearance of the gamma factor is derived from rotation a priori, this is remarkable because special relativity is based on constant linear motion and is not valid for rotational systems (although it is often used as "relativistic mechanics" Рone of the obvious contradictions in standard physics).

I eqs. (13,14) of the note and related equations I would prefer writing "a" instead of "r" because Delta_phi_T should be a constant value, but this is marginally.

Horst

Am 06.05.2018 um 13:08 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 407(1): Thomas Precession in Planetary Orbits and the H Atom Orbitals

This note shows that the well known energy levels of the H atom are due to Thomas precession as given by Eq. (38). This is a very remarkable result not known hitherto. So the well known Schroedinger H atom can be developed in terms of the fine structure constant, the Einstein rest energy m c squared, and the electron rest frequency m c squared / h bar. These are all relativistic concepts. Here n is the principal quantum number. Choosing n = 1 shows that there is a Thomas precession of 4.14 degrees as given by Eq. (41). Also, for n = 1 in atomic H, (v / c) squared = alpha , where alpha is the fine structure constant, so v / c = 0.0854. Alpha is 1 / 137. This is one way of showing that Thomas precession is not a small effect in atoms and molecules. It is well known that it emerges from the ECE2 fermion equation, a development of the Dirac equation. The Thomas precession (1) from rotating the ECE2 covariant line element (1) looks completely different but the two effects are based on the same theory. The EGR has fallen apart completely, so the only thing that can be claimed theoretically now is that the Thomas precession of a nearly circular orbit, Eq. (46) is part of the observed precession. Thomas precession is numerically a third of the de Siitter or geodetic precession, but the latter is incorrectly calculated from a geometry without torsion. It is of key importance to note that the standard model always gives the result (40) from its own equations. The standard result (49) refutes the standard claim (51), and the entire structure of EGR collapses completely. It was bound to to so because its geometry is completely wrong. There are many schools of ECE thought building up in essentially all universities of any note that are interested in physics, and a vast amount of interest from various sources in up to 192 countries. This is clear from the scientometrics. The next note will deal with commutators of Lorentz boosts in order to find exactly how the Thomas precession emerges. A complete new theory is in place, based on vacuum fluctuations.

Note 407(1): Thomas Precession in Planetary Orbits and the H Atom Orbitals

Note 407(1): Thomas Precession in Planetary Orbits and the H Atom Orbitals

This note shows that the well known energy levels of the H atom are due to Thomas precession as given by Eq. (38). This is a very remarkable result not known hitherto. So the well known Schroedinger H atom can be developed in terms of the fine structure constant, the Einstein rest energy m c squared, and the electron rest frequency m c squared / h bar. These are all relativistic concepts. Here n is the principal quantum number. Choosing n = 1 shows that there is a Thomas precession of 4.14 degrees as given by Eq. (41). Also, for n = 1 in atomic H, (v / c) squared = alpha , where alpha is the fine structure constant, so v / c = 0.0854. Alpha is 1 / 137. This is one way of showing that Thomas precession is not a small effect in atoms and molecules. It is well known that it emerges from the ECE2 fermion equation, a development of the Dirac equation. The Thomas precession (1) from rotating the ECE2 covariant line element (1) looks completely different but the two effects are based on the same theory. The EGR has fallen apart completely, so the only thing that can be claimed theoretically now is that the Thomas precession of a nearly circular orbit, Eq. (46) is part of the observed precession. Thomas precession is numerically a third of the de Siitter or geodetic precession, but the latter is incorrectly calculated from a geometry without torsion. It is of key importance to note that the standard model always gives the result (40) from its own equations. The standard result (49) refutes the standard claim (51), and the entire structure of EGR collapses completely. It was bound to to so because its geometry is completely wrong. There are many schools of ECE thought building up in essentially all universities of any note that are interested in physics, and a vast amount of interest from various sources in up to 192 countries. This is clear from the scientometrics. The next note will deal with commutators of Lorentz boosts in order to find exactly how the Thomas precession emerges. A complete new theory is in place, based on vacuum fluctuations.

a407thpapernotes1.pdf

FOR POSTING: UFT406 Sections 1 and 2 and Background Notes

Typo in UFT406.

Many thanks for the meticulous checking of this paper. I have just finished calculations which show that the well known Thomas factor of spectra can be deduced from rotating the metric. The Thomas precession also occurs in planetary motion and has again been ignored by the dogmatists. We stand at the cross roads at present because the basic concepts of the standard model are disintegrating. In view of the fact that the standard idea of geodetic precession is derived from a rotating Schwarzschild metric it is not correct to read anything in to it. UFT406 used the concepts pf the standard model itself to show that it is completely wrong even within its own terms. If one takes their own equations UFT406 shows that their claims are wildly wrong. The Thomas precession on the other hand does not depend on the Einstein field equation. I have shown that the theory that gives rise to the Thomas precession of planets gives the famous Thomas factor of two of spin orbit interaction in the low velocity limit. At first sight, there seems to be no relation between the two effects, so I decided to give the full details. I will send them out tomorrow. All concepts based on the Einstein field equation have been refuted and ECE schools of thought established in all universities of note. The dogmatists are cornered because they have to keep on making their absurd claims that the theory is incredibly precise. it is just that – incredible (zero credibility).

Myron Evans <myronevans123>

In eq. (44) of the paper the two dots above r at the LHS are missing.
Concerning omission of geodetic precession in experimental data: Does this precession depend on any angle of observation? We know that this is the case for the Lense-Thirring precession.

Horst

Am 03.05.2018 um 12:36 schrieb Myron Evans:

FOR POSTING: UFT406 Sections 1 and 2 and Background Notes

This paper gives the clearest and simplest refutation of EGR to date, using the methods of the standard model itself and gives the vacuum fluctuation theory of light deflection due to gravitation.

Tests of Special Relativity

Tests of Special Relativity

to Dr Santini: My remark on special relativity having been tested rigorously was written eight years ago, before ECE2 was developed. I always encourage discussion and thank you for your comments. "I dislike arguments of any kind, they are always vulgar and often convincing" (the dogmatists of Oscar Wilde). The tests of what used to be called special relativity are well known, which does not mean that they are right, but unlike general relativity some of them are very precise, for example the weak equivalence principle and the Sagnac effect to one part in ten power twenty or more. Time dilation has been tested many times by recent experiments (one part in ten power eight at least) and particle accelerator design depends on special relativity. The Maxwell Heaviside equations are equations of what used to be called special relativity, and work in many ways, but are modified by ECE. The Coulomb law of MH for example is the most precise law in physics. There is a review of superluminal tachyon theory in my "Advances in Chemical Physics" book "Modern Nonlinear Optics", and UFT166 has become a classic on superluminal motion, having been read tens of thousands of times. That does not mean that it is right, but being hiuman i like anthropomorphic popularity. The constancy of the universal constant c does not mean that light cannot travel faster than c, or slower than c (photon mass theory) – see the Evans Morris papers. In "The Enigmatic Photon", the photon mass theory was greatly developed, the photon becomes a special relativistic particle and tachyon theory is discussed by Recami. Length contraction is more difficult to test, but there are many contemporary tests. A google lit search will find them, whether they are right or wrong. At Vigier One in Toronto there was extensive discussion on the Michelson Morley experiment. Vigier gave a lecture on it and concluded that the experiment could have given false results. In our most recent work the vacuum or aether plays a prominent role. I think that Horst Eckardt has developed his own version of special relativity. ECE2 is not special relativity, it is a generally covariant unified field theory, in which torsion and curvature are both non zero. Its field equation look like Maxwell Heaviside (MH) and its lagrangian and hamiltonian look like those of special relativity. When it comes to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform it is best in my opinion to forget about words (and it is only my opinion as Vigier would say) the best way forward is to apply P, C, T, CP, CT, CP and CPT to the Lorentz transform. There are no violations of symmetry in the U(1) sector and none in the Lorentz transform. These start to appear in the electroweak sector of the obsolete standard physics, but electroweak theory has been refuted in UFT225. So U(1) x SU(2) has been refuted. As you know there are parity violations in electroweak theory, and atoms become optically active. The transition from MH to O(3) electrodynamics occurred via B(3), and developed into ECE and ECE2. These are very powerful theories which can be adapted to deal with any data. If there are any data that definitively refute the U(1) sector of the old standard model then ECE2 can be applied to those data. Special relativity no longer exists, it has developed into ECE2 theory, it is no longer a theory of Minkowski spacetime with no torsion and no curvature. A theory that has no torsion and no curvature violates Cartan geometry.

406(7): Final Version of Note 406(6)

Note 406(7): Final Version of Note 406(6)

In this final version it is shown that vacuum fluctuations are at a maximum for the propagation of light (Eq. (14)) and vanish in the Newtonian limit. So for light grazing the sun the vacuum fluctuations are maximized. In previous work it was shown that Eq. (15) produces a precessing ellipse. When vacuum fluctuations are added this equation becomes Eq. (17) which can be solved for <delta r dot delta r> in general.

a406thpapernotes7.pdf

Advertisements