-
A PEP model of the electron
Authors:
R. L. Collins
Abstract:
One of the more profound mysteries of physics is how nature ties together EM fields to form an electron. A way to do this is examined in this study. A bare magnetic dipole containing a flux quantum spins stably, and produces an inverse square E= -vxB electric field similar to what one finds from charge. Gauss' law finds charge in this model, though there be none. For stability, a current loop ab…
▽ More
One of the more profound mysteries of physics is how nature ties together EM fields to form an electron. A way to do this is examined in this study. A bare magnetic dipole containing a flux quantum spins stably, and produces an inverse square E= -vxB electric field similar to what one finds from charge. Gauss' law finds charge in this model, though there be none. For stability, a current loop about the waist of the magnetic dipole is needed and we must go beyond the classical Maxwell's equations to find it. A spinning E field is equivalent to an electric displacement current. The sideways motion of the spinning E (of constant magnitude) creates a little-recognized transverse electric displacement current about the waist. This differs from Maxwell's electric displacement current, in which E increases in magnitude. The sideways motion of E supports the dipolar B field, B=vxE/c^2. Beyond the very core of the magnetic dipole, each of these two velocities is essentially c and vxE/c^2 = vx(-vxB)/c^2 = B, the spinning E field wholly sourcing the dipolar B field. The anisotropy of the vxB field is cured by precession about an inclined axis. Choosing a Bohr magneton for the magnetic dipole and assuming it spins at the Compton frequency, Gauss' law finds Q = e. The vxB field, normally thought to be solenoidal, becomes instead a conservative field in this model. Charge is recognized as merely a mathematical construct, not fundamental but nevertheless useful. With charge deleted, and with addition of the transverse electric displacement current, Maxwell's equations can be written in terms of the E and B fields alone.
△ Less
Submitted 30 January, 2008;
originally announced January 2008.
-
Charge, from EM fields only
Authors:
R. L. Collins
Abstract:
Consider the electric field E about an electron. Its source has been thought a substance called charge, enclosed within a small volume that defines the size of the electron. Scattering experiments find no size at all. Charge is useful, but mysterious. This study concludes that charge is not real. Useful, but not real. Absent real charge, the electric field must look to a different source. We kno…
▽ More
Consider the electric field E about an electron. Its source has been thought a substance called charge, enclosed within a small volume that defines the size of the electron. Scattering experiments find no size at all. Charge is useful, but mysterious. This study concludes that charge is not real. Useful, but not real. Absent real charge, the electric field must look to a different source. We know another electric field, vxB, not sourced by charge. A simple model of the electron, using EM fields only, has been found that generates an electric field vxB very like E. Gauss' law finds the model contains charge, but div vxB cannot find the charge density. The model contains a permanent magnetic flux quantum, configured as a dipole. The dipolar B fields spin around the symmetry axis, accounting for angular momentum. Spin stabilizes the magnetic flux quantum, and creates the vxB electric field. Stability in this model is dynamic. Energy is exchanged between the dipolar magnetic moment and an encircling toroidal displacement current, at the Compton frequency, mc^2/h = 1.24x10^20 Hz. The electric field undulates at this rate, instead of being static like E associated with charge. Absent any real charge, we have to abandon the notion that size of a charged particle is that of a small sack full of charge. The only electric field is vxB, and its source is not charge. What is the size of an electron? Coulomb scattering finds it point-like, but its spinning B fields extend to infinity.
△ Less
Submitted 4 March, 2007; v1 submitted 27 November, 2006;
originally announced November 2006.
-
The shrinking Hubble constant
Authors:
R. L. Collins
Abstract:
Hubble plots of the distance of stellar objects vs. recession velocity normally assume the red shift is wholly Doppler and ignore any gravitational contribution. This is unwarranted: gravity and Doppler velocity red shifts are found to be separable and contribute about equally. A recent data set, to Z=1.2, by Riess (1), was analyzed. Upon plotting distance vs. Doppler velocity, the slope of the…
▽ More
Hubble plots of the distance of stellar objects vs. recession velocity normally assume the red shift is wholly Doppler and ignore any gravitational contribution. This is unwarranted: gravity and Doppler velocity red shifts are found to be separable and contribute about equally. A recent data set, to Z=1.2, by Riess (1), was analyzed. Upon plotting distance vs. Doppler velocity, the slope of the Hubble plot increases. The Hubble plot is also curved, upwards, and this can be understood in terms of the relativistic metric changes of the space through which the light travels. On fitting the data to a simple model of a big bang of constant density, this finds the total mass of the big bang is M=21.1x10^52 kg. When present actual distance is plotted vs. Doppler velocity, the plot is linear and agrees with Hubble's concept, without acceleration. Time since the big bang is longer than the 14 billion years that had been thought, 23.5 billion years. The Hubble constant hence shrinks from Ho=71 to Ho=41.6. This is an independent affirmation of a recent CMB finding of a low Ho=35.
△ Less
Submitted 10 January, 2006; v1 submitted 3 January, 2006;
originally announced January 2006.
-
SN1a Supernova Red Shifts
Authors:
R. L. Collins
Abstract:
Recent SN1a data have probed deeper into space than ever before. Plotted as distance vs. recession speed, a disturbing non-linearity is found which has led to speculations about "dark energy" which somehow acts like anti-gravity. This study finds a full explanation in relativity theory. The metric of space shrinks, in the presence of a gravitational potential, V, by exp(V/c^2). Early in the big…
▽ More
Recent SN1a data have probed deeper into space than ever before. Plotted as distance vs. recession speed, a disturbing non-linearity is found which has led to speculations about "dark energy" which somehow acts like anti-gravity. This study finds a full explanation in relativity theory. The metric of space shrinks, in the presence of a gravitational potential, V, by exp(V/c^2). Early in the big bang, when the SN1a's sent their signals, V was larger than now. By fitting the data to a relativistic model, we probe the metric of the early big bang. V, due to all mass in the big bang, is a billion times larger than that provided by earth gravity alone. The big bang is modeled as a sphere of constant density, of radius R_0 = cT. The metrics of time and distance shrink, each by alpha = exp(V/c^2, and this study finds the data fitted by 1/alpha = 1.55. Earlier, 1/alpha was much larger. As with the deflection of starlight and the Shapiro time delay, gravity affects space like an index of refraction, n=1/alpha^2. The Hubble concept remains valid, but with geometric distance instead of optical distance. A 2-parameter fit to 3 sets of data finds T=16.24x10^9 years and total mass in our big bang is now M=6.03x10^52 kg (all in our metric). Because n, now 2.41, shrinks with time, all standards of M, L, and T (including atomic standards) are changing by a few parts per billion per decade and should be referenced to a time definite.
△ Less
Submitted 5 October, 2004; v1 submitted 5 January, 2001;
originally announced January 2001.
-
Changing Mass Corrects Newtonian Gravity
Authors:
R. L. Collins
Abstract:
Newton's inverse-square law of universal gravitation assumes constant mass. But mass increases with speed and perhaps with gravity. By SR, mass is increased over the rest mass by gamma. Rest mass is here postulated to increase under gravity, by 1/alpha =1+GM/rc^2. We examine the consequences of introducing this changing mass into Newton's law in flat spacetime. This variable mass affects the met…
▽ More
Newton's inverse-square law of universal gravitation assumes constant mass. But mass increases with speed and perhaps with gravity. By SR, mass is increased over the rest mass by gamma. Rest mass is here postulated to increase under gravity, by 1/alpha =1+GM/rc^2. We examine the consequences of introducing this changing mass into Newton's law in flat spacetime. This variable mass affects the metric, relative to an observer away from the influence of gravity, contracting both lengths and times (as measured) by alpha/gamma. The gravitational force, as in orbital calculations, differs from Newton's law by the factor (gamma/alpha)^3, and is not quite inverse square. Without adjustable parameters, this accounts fully for the classical tests of GR. The postulated "fifth force" appears at the 10^-9 g level. Gravitationally-influenced space remains Euclidean, but the mass-metric changes make it seem curved when measured.
△ Less
Submitted 28 December, 2000;
originally announced December 2000.
