New theory leads to radiationless revolution

New theory leads to radiationless revolution
Dr. Miroshnichenko with his visualization of anapoles as dark matter. Credit: Stuart Hay, ANU

Physicists have found a radical new way confine electromagnetic energy without it leaking away, akin to throwing a pebble into a pond with no splash.

The theory could have broad ranging applications from explaining dark matter to combating energy losses in future technologies.

However, it appears to contradict a fundamental tenet of electrodynamics, that accelerated charges create , said lead researcher Dr Andrey Miroshnichenko from The Australian National University (ANU).

"This problem has puzzled many people. It took us a year to get this concept clear in our heads," said Dr Miroshnichenko, from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.

The fundamental new theory could be used in quantum computers, lead to new laser technology and may even hold the key to understanding how matter itself hangs together.

"Ever since the beginning of quantum mechanics people have been looking for a configuration which could explain the stability of atoms and why orbiting electrons do not radiate," Dr Miroshnichenko said.

The absence of radiation is the result of the current being divided between two different components, a conventional electric dipole and a toroidal dipole (associated with poloidal current configuration), which produce identical fields at a distance.

If these two configurations are out of phase then the radiation will be cancelled out, even though the electromagnetic fields are non-zero in the area close to the currents.

New theory leads to radiationless revolution
Visualization of dark matter as energy confined within non-radiating anapoles. Credit: Andrey Miroshnichenko

Dr Miroshnichenko, in collaboration with colleagues from Germany and Singapore, successfully tested his new theory with a single silicon nanodiscs between 160 and 310 nanometres in diameter and 50 nanometres high, which he was able to make effectively invisible by cancelling the disc's scattering of visible light.

This type of excitation is known as an anapole (from the Greek, 'without poles').

Dr Miroshnichenko's insight came while trying to reconcile differences between two different mathematical descriptions of radiation; one based on Cartesian multipoles and the other on vector spherical harmonics used in a Mie basis set.

"The two gave different answers, and they shouldn't. Eventually we realised the Cartesian description was missing the toroidal components," Dr Miroshnichenko said.

"We realised that these toroidal components were not just a correction, they could be a very significant factor."

Dr Miroshnichenko said the confined energy of anapoles could be important in the development of tiny lasers on the surface of materials, called spasers, and also in the creation of efficient X-ray lasers by high-order harmonic generation.


Explore further

Building shape inspires new material discovery

Citation: New theory leads to radiationless revolution (2015, August 27) retrieved 17 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-08-theory-radiationless-revolution.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
4255 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 27, 2015
Some people deserve a Nobel prize for this one, it could revolutionise everything from simple chemical reactions to the standard model itself. If it is a fundamental of particle persistence then we could be on the road to manufacturing atomic structures.

Aug 27, 2015
Some people deserve a Nobel prize for this one,


Unfair as it may seem, the Nobel Prize is not awarded to theoreticians. It is given to experimental scientists who actually prove these theories. The classic case of this was Albert Einstein's Nobel Prize: It was not given to him for his work on relativity, never mind how brilliant it was. It was given to him for his work on photoelectric effects.

Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 27, 2015
"Ever since the beginning of quantum mechanics people have been looking for a configuration which could explain the stability of atoms and why orbiting electrons do not radiate," Dr Miroshnichenko said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Orbiting electrons do not "radiate" because they are not accelerating charges when they are in stable orbits. When electrons are in stable orbital positions their rate of orbital speed around the nucleus is constant, this does not change unless energy to the electron shell structure occurs causing an electron to change orbital positions through acceleration or deceleration of the charge as the electron changes positions.

Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 27, 2015
" Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence "?
We were having a polite discussion on topic until I hit this trite nonsense which makes me quite disheveled.
I am sorry to have broken the thread. Please continue.

Aug 27, 2015
Unfair as it may seem, the Nobel Prize is not awarded to theoreticians. It is given to experimental scientists who actually prove these theories.

according to the article they already did test it:
"Dr Miroshnichenko, in collaboration with colleagues from Germany and Singapore, successfully tested his new theory with a single silicon nanodiscs between 160 and 310 nanometres in diameter and 50 nanometres high, which he was able to make effectively invisible by cancelling the disc's scattering of visible light."

Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 27, 2015
Orbiting electrons do not "radiate" because they are not accelerating charges when they are in stable orbits. When electrons are in stable orbital positions their rate of orbital speed around the nucleus is constant, this does not change unless energy to the electron shell structure occurs causing an electron to change orbital positions through acceleration or deceleration of the charge as the electron changes positions.

FAIL. A change in direction counts as an acceleration.

Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 27, 2015
Well, the centripetal acceleration is also an acceleration, so that the electrons should radiate energy even during their regular motion around atoms.


They should, but they don't because they aren't making regular motions around atoms.

Electrons are not tiny balls that whizz around the nucleus, they're a probability density wave which stays effectively still as long as nothing disturbs it.

The act of measurement causes the electron to collapse onto a point and appear as a particle. As long as you're not trying to measure where the electron is, it isn't anywhere in particular, so claiming that it moves at all is simply nonsensical. It only "moves" when changing orbitals, which is when it either absorbs or radiates energy.


Aug 27, 2015
The same quantum fluctuations will also lead into spontaneous change of electron spin, i.e. motion direction around atoms.


That's complete bullcrap. "Spin" is nothing of the sort - it's an intrinsic property of the electron itself - a sort of "intrinsic angular momentum". Note that this does not actually mean the electron is spinning around itself.

You're spouting reams and reams of absolute drivel.

Aug 27, 2015
Orbiting electrons do not "radiate" because they are not accelerating charges when they are in stable orbits. When electrons are in stable orbital positions their rate of orbital speed around the nucleus is constant, this does not change unless energy to the electron shell structure occurs causing an electron to change orbital positions through acceleration or deceleration of the charge as the electron changes positions.

FAIL. A change in direction counts as an acceleration.
......FAIL yourself......it decelerates when it settles into a different orbital position from a previous orbital position, this deceleration is an exact description of what the electron is actually doing & why the electron radiates as it loses energy. Give up on the picky points, you get no medals for them.

Aug 28, 2015
Eikka is on the money in this thread :-)
I think the term orbital when used for atoms or molecules should probably be replaced with the term shells, which is also used.
Ohh and correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding for an electron performing a "jump" or transistion is that the distance the electron wave travels, changes until it reaches a location of Constructive interference. At that point it has the highest probability of being detected. ie, given a certain wavelength, only certain radii will fit an integer number of wavelengths. Can I assume the energy of the electron is related to it's wavelength, hence it's distance from the nucleus, given the constructive interference constraint.
I don't know, is this old school understanding, or still valid? Been some time since I did physics.

Aug 28, 2015
If I recall correctly, I think the spectra of a single electron Hydrogen Atoms, first spectral series can be calculated from first principles, given my description above. Though I think it becomes too hard to calculate for bigger atoms. True or False??

Aug 28, 2015
Dark matter explained; as energy wrapped around two hidden dimensions such that it doesn't have any far-field interactions. A brilliant concept well worth exploring theoretically and physically. The idea that hidden dimensions of our universe could have a toroidal /poloidal relationship wrapped around each other could also lead to answers of some very fundamental 'nature of reality' questions.

I agree that if this pans out it could well be worthy of a Nobel prize.

Perhaps the inter-wrapped circular hidden dimensions do give rise to spin and now some 'hyper-spin' type effects which cancel at normal far field ( low energy ) distances. I hope the 13TeV of the LHC is high enough to make 'near field' measurements and reveal dark matter.

Aug 28, 2015
Yes well I've always thought that an electrons spin could be represented by a mobius strip. Though I think some people smarter than me claimed otherwise hahahahaha. So EyeNStein, if other dimensions were present, then perhaps the mobius strip could be resurrected.

Aug 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 28, 2015
"Ever since the beginning of quantum mechanics people have been looking for a configuration which could explain the stability of atoms and why orbiting electrons do not radiate," Dr Miroshnichenko said.


The real reason why this is so is explained fully in section 6 of my book entitled; "Why does E=mc2" which can until the end of this day be downloaded for free from Amazon: The "orbital electron" is a stationary EM wave which cannot radiate since its energy E=mc2 is solely rest-mass energy. There is no kinetic-energy which can dissipate by the emission of light.

http://www.amazon...tries*=0

Aug 28, 2015
While its a concept worth considering, that particles consist of energy running round some convoluted racetrack in such a way that their combined far field effect prevents them radiating away into the fields that formed them.
This also has to be a major simplification, as matter has to have a wave-like existence spread across the 3 Dimensions that we perceive. And spooky quantum interactions can happen across great distances, hidden behind the "Quantum curtain" until we observe them.

But it could eventually explain the properties of the known particles ( like mass and charge) that they have to run their family racetracks, obey the rules for not radiating their existence away, and get back exactly in the same state they started to avoid a discontinuity.

Aug 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 29, 2015
Not sure what this is. Sounds like a kinetic to a potential energy, state. But radiation is always there, maybe we can't see the magnitude, nor distribution, due to a holistic change of state. Visible light? Entire spectrum from sound through ... anyway, not sure the theory is even correct; however, correct measurement is indisputable. From where I've been, not sure we are capable of this measurement correctly. Best to define the response from an accurate model. maybe we will see a hidden truth, i.e. physics is the same everywhere and scales beyond measure-ability; however, definable using only the "+" and the "-" in proper configurations.

Aug 29, 2015
"Ever since the beginning of quantum mechanics people have been looking for a configuration which could explain the stability of atoms and why orbiting electrons do not radiate," Dr Miroshnichenko said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Orbiting electrons do not "radiate" because they are not accelerating charges when they are in stable orbits. When electrons are in stable orbital positions their rate of orbital speed around the nucleus is constant, this does not change unless energy to the electron shell structure occurs causing an electron to change orbital positions through acceleration or deceleration of the charge as the electron changes positions.

Curious, do not radiate? Lasers!

Aug 29, 2015
If we would shield both the generator, both detector with robust Faraday cage, we would exclude the radiative transfer of signal with electromagnetic wave. If some impulse can be still measured at the detector layer, we could say, we just proved the anapole radiation. Best of all, you even don't need the expensive superconductors or graphene monolayers for it. Many similar arrangements will work here too: for example the plate capacitors charged at high voltage or ferromagnets in monopole arrangement may serve here as well, as they contain some spatially constrained electrons too. Tesla did use spherical capacitors charged to high voltages for his "nonradiative energy" transfer. Now the physicists just have to reinvent his observations again after one century of misinterpretation and dismissal of his work. And we will pay for it, whereas Tesla did all this research for free.

Funny, you know a requirement is a constant reference for potential measure or a dual rail measurement.

Aug 29, 2015


Another example of the lack of comprehension by present-day physicists. It began with Einstein who also did not understand the basics of electromagnetic radiation. It was not until 1936 that antenna radiation was characterized in the form of three equations that defined radiation in the near and far fields. It also showed that rotating electrons, while they do exhibit dynamic localized fields, do not produce detectable radiation in the far field. I have proved that radiation is transverse in nature, and circulating electrons do not have this necessary transverse characteristic.

Close, the near field is always dominate. Within a far field the "+" and "-" pairs will move as a unit, i.e. this containment is always greater than that caused by a uniform far field. recall the requirement for dE/dt, dE/dr, or maybe define a correct 4D unit-less space. It's obvious. Note the potential between "mass" centers, or better yet, the "+" & "-" centers. Gravity, Not a separate force.

Aug 29, 2015
Take time to understand the summation over time, the origin and the extent of a particle's field. Very enlightening! Then you may design with the CPU visibility into the unknown. Its a continuous real function and is very simple. Answer to the universe and everything ... so to speak. See it from minus infinity to plus infinity or whatever, but don't make up $hit. It was already defined before the standard model or Dr. E. Standard model is searching for an acceptable reason to use what popped into someone's head, not rigor! By the way, we can only measure and define the effects of the "+" and the "-", what it is exactly is unknown. The standard model does not define the stability of any atom or gravity. It's only an effort in futility.

Aug 29, 2015
"Ever since the beginning of quantum mechanics people have been looking for a configuration which could explain the stability of atoms and why orbiting electrons do not radiate," Dr Miroshnichenko said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Orbiting electrons do not "radiate" because they are not accelerating charges when they are in stable orbits. When electrons are in stable orbital positions their rate of orbital speed around the nucleus is constant, this does not change unless energy to the electron shell structure occurs causing an electron to change orbital positions through acceleration or deceleration of the charge as the electron changes positions.


Curious, do not radiate? Lasers!


Light Amplification Stimulated Emission Radiation- LASER

The Stimulated Emission of Radiation occurs when electrons are changing orbital positions within the electron shell structure.

Aug 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 30, 2015
A liitle research on Google or looking up anapoles on Wikipedia show that someone at Vanderbilt University had this same idea back in 2013.

http://news.vande...-matter/
Except they postulated its 'just electromagnetic' in nature. Not realising that at the scale of hidden dimensions a lot of unification of fundamental forces would have take place.

Aug 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 30, 2015
"Some people deserve a Nobel prize for this one."

If you can mix this article's idea with the following idea, then it for sure would win a Nobel prize in physics.

August 27, 2015: Evidence suggests subatomic particles could defy the standard model

http://phys.org/n...ard.html

Aug 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 31, 2015
Hmmm, rather obscure science discovery and not so easy to understand but gets more ink than I thought it would. Think the Johnnie who dreamed up 'aether vortices' as the foundation of matter was named 'Vogt'.

Aug 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 31, 2015
Total nonsense. The explanation is mumbo jumbo nonsense and the explanation of photons is nonsense. Since the guy is a russian what more can you expect. The russians bless their hearts just about own fraud in all its many forms.

Aug 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 31, 2015
Oh well, I suppose it had to happen sooner or later.

The time has come for stringent drug testing of all posters on this site. Anybody posting on this - or any other - thread on phys.org should expect a visit in the near future to verify their drug-free status.

Sincerely,
Admin.

Aug 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 01, 2015
It's actually quite trivial stuff from aether model perspective: the physicists finally considered the fact, that the vacuum spreads not just waves, but also vortex rings like any other particle gas... Nothing difficult for understanding is here...
Except that you are not able to formulate the applicable differential equations and their solutions. How about doing the latter instead of just waving your arms and ejecting spittle without being willing to read more logical ideas and the equations which they lead to. Please post your equations for your so-called "|vortices". They do not exist at all.

Sep 01, 2015
You cannot beat the http://www.genera...ther.jpg in this matter.
How can you beat something that does not exist? Is this why you are waving your arms in the air? Trying to "beat" the non-existent aether?

Sep 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 02, 2015
Please post your equations for your so-called "|vortices". They do not exist at all
The Maxwell's theory (after Heaviside simplification) is even more background independent, than the general relativity itself - in certain sense your ideas are even more retarded, than the models of mainstream physicists today, who admitted the existence of such vortices finally (in form of anapoles). Usually the crackpots are aether models biased, but you're going in opposite way. Which is really something.

I am not interested in hallucinations like vortices and anapoles since they are as wrong Minkowski's space-time.

You have Maxwell's wave equation del^(PHI)=1/(c^)(PHI) where the speed c=1/sqrt[(epsilon0)*(mu0)] where epsilon0 and mu0 are the SAME within all IRF's. Thus light DOES NOT move within a material called the aether. If it did, the speed of light WILL NOT be the same value c within all IRF's. Where do vortices and anapoles come in?

Sep 02, 2015
Sorry: You have two wave-equations given as (del^2)(PHI)=(1/c^2)[(d^2)/dt^2)(PHI) where in the one equation (PHI)=electric-field vector, and in the other equation (PHI)=magnetic field vector. They have to be solved simultaneously, subject to the boundary-conditions of the source that is emitting or has emitted the wave. According to these equations an emitted wave-front always moves with a speed c away from the source. Therefore the same wave-front when, viewed from two IRF's moving relative to one another, is not coincident in space with itself: i.e. if there is an omnipotent person who can see the same wave-front within the two IRF's, this wave-front will not be coincident with itself. Einstein assumed against all logic that the wave-front would be coincident with itself if it could have been seen simultaneously from both IRF's: He threfore ended up with the absurd impossibilities of time-dilation and length-contraction.

Sep 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 02, 2015
Where do vortices and anapoles come in?
And where the photons come in?


A photon is a coherent light-wave with frequency f that has a total energy given by hf. Not all light-waves with frequency f must have an energy of hf.

The Maxwell's wave equation also doesn't predict something like the photons
Maxwell's equations do predict that a source can emit a coherent light-wave which has a total energy of hf.
or quantization of energy. It's simplified, 160 years old model of light wave, which doesn't account to quantum phenomena of any kind.
Wrong, Maxwell's equations predict that matter with mass m is a wave with energy m*c^2 and a frequency of f=[m*c^2]/h. This is also the case for Jupiter and an electron. An atomic electron only has rest-mass and a rest-mass frequency f(1)=[m(1)*c^2]/h. When it emits energy it has to change into a wave with a lower rest-mass energy, so that the emitted light-energy is E=hf(1)-hf(2)=hf

Sep 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 02, 2015
Someone's been sniffing the aether again.

Sep 02, 2015
BTW This is how the photons look like in https://uomsparkc...etup.JPG They spread like well localized particles - not like the coherent wave.

Without any other boundary conditions, than the source, Maxwell's equations ONLY give a solution for a SINGLE wave with the SAME SINGLE frequency of the source: Such a wave is a coherent, harmonic wave (if you do not know what these terms mean pass "Go" and go back to primary school). What you see in a spark chamber has to do with MANY sources emitting many such waves. These waves are each a localised LIGHT-WAVE that has distributed EM energy E=m*c^2, and thus ALSO a centre-of mass. Obviously a light-wave can have a localised-volume, but only a MORONIC FOOL will call such a light-wave a "particle".

Sep 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2015
According to Maxwell's equations the light is spreading in http://askthephys...pole.gif with dense aether theory easily.
This is only ONE possible solution for Maxwell's equations. The shape, size and spreading of an EM-wave are determined by the boundary conditions, of which the most important ones are those of the source that emits the wave. For example a laser-source DOES NOT emit a wave that has spreading wave-fronts. A laser pulse has an energy E=m*c^2 which is continuously-distributed EM energy within the volume of the pulse where this volume is moving along a single direction. Since this energy is continuously distributed within the pulse and is mass, the pulse has a centre of mass that moves with momentum p=mc. If you are stupid you will conclude that this pulse is a "particle". Thus you are wrong again!

Sep 03, 2015
What you see in a spark chamber has to do with MANY sources emitting many such waves
The gamma ray photons are emitted with pin-point atom nuclei, no multiple sources are necessary for it.
Hallooo? Are you all there? Are all the gamma-photons emitted by a SINGLE "pinpoint" source, or are they emitted as a gamma-photon per "pinpoint"-source?
I'd say instead, you don't understand the photon formation...;-)
Wrong again: It is YOU who do not understand that an atomic electron with energy E(1) has a rest-mass energy of m(1)*c^2=hf(1) and when it emits a photon, looses rest-mass-energy to have m(2)*c^2=hf(2) so that the emitted photon has energy hf(1)-hf(2)=hf. This difference in rest-mass energy is emitted as purely kinetic EM energy so that a photon with a centre of mass moves away from the atom with momentum p=mc, where m=(hf)/c^2. So that a moron concludes that the photon-wave is a "particle".

Sep 03, 2015
You know, you're fighting with mainstream physicists all the time, but you're still demonstrating typical pattern of mainstream science thinking - it's capability remains constrained to formal model, which it can handle.
In this respect the mainstream physicists are correct. Their problem is that they, like their progenitors Einstein and Minkowski, are incompetent when it comes to mathematics
No math model means no new insights with no mercy.. And because your mathematical capability is not very high, you're acting here as even more retarded, than the mainstream physics. Which is really something...
My arguments are all based on impeccable mathematics. Anybody can verify this by reading my books; which you of course refuse to do since you believe physics must be based on non verifiable hand-waving arguments. Show me a single mathematical formula that YOU have derived: And then you have the arrogance to accuse ME that I am not competent!.

Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2015
The one atom nuclei radiates one gamma ray photon during its decay. But no spherical wave is generated - but a single particle ray.
Why must it be spherical? This is not demanded by Maxwell's equations.
All other conditions are the same - vacuum, distance, etc. Please explain without hand waving.
You want me to explain why the emission is not spherical without YOU first explaining without hand-waving why YOU think it must be spherical. LOL. As I have already tried to get through your bony skull, Maxwell's equations give different solutions for different boundary conditions of which a spherical wave is only one. The assumption one must make to obtain a spherical wave is that one has a point-source with an infinite mass. Obviously a nucleus does NOT have an infinite mass and in order to maintain momentum, the gamma-ray light-wave will be emitted along a single direction. So what is your problem my boy. Never heard that a light-wave has momentum? Tsk! tsk!

Sep 03, 2015
The Maxwell model is simple and robust, but it gets violated with vacuum fluctuations.
Wrong! There are NO vacuum fluctuations. Maxwell's equations predict fluctuations WITHIN THE VOLUME of a stationary light-wave.
It works only at the dimensional scales similar to special relativity - when these fluctuations can be neglected
Wrong again, These equations model macro EM-waves AND EM waves of atomic and electronic sizes.
It's like to say, the insights of mainstream scientists regarding the high temperature superconductivity are based on BSC model, which is based on "impeccable mathematics". Of course it is, but the assumptions on which this math has been derived aren't.
The BSC model IS NOT based on impeccable mathematics since it is based on renormalisation which is NOT impeccable mathematics.

Mark Twain described YOU when he stated: "I met a man today who knows more things that are not so than any other man I have ever met!

Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2015
Maxwell's equations predict perfectly harmonic spherical wave only. This and nothing else is what the Maxwell's theory does.
Why do you keep on displaying your utter ignorance and inability to understand and solve differential equations? A harmonic wave emitted by a laser source is modelled by Maxwell's equations and it is NOT a spherical wave.
The photon doesn't require boundary conditions -
Oh yes a photon wave requires a specific source which is a stationary electron-wave.
the photons are generated even in completely unconstrained space -
There is no experimental proof for this at all!!!
but they do require to consider the quantum density fluctuations of vacuum
, There are no such things like "quantum density fluctuations of a vacuum". A vacuum does not have density since it is empty space.
being soliton solution of harmonic wave.
A soliton ONLY forms within a medium like water, and is NOT an EM-wave, which DOES not move in aether..

Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2015
Unfortunately for you, it's not Maxwell's or any other theory, which decides the photon and vacuum fluctuations existence - but the experiments.
Which experiments? Those with water droplets? LOL!
If the (existence of) photons contradict the solution of Maxwells theory at flat space-time, then it just means, that the space-time is not flat.


A photon does not contradict Maxwell's equations since it is a solution of Maxwell's equations for a coherent harmonic wave that has an energy given by hf(p) and a momentum p=h/lambda. This means that c=(lambda)*f(p) which is required for a Maxwell-wave to be a coherent wave.

Similarly, an electron moving with speed v is also a solution of Maxwell's equations, but with a phase-speed given by c(e)=(c^2)/v: By multiplying the top and bottom with m, one obtains that c(e)=[m*c^2]/mv=[hf(e)]/[h/lambda] so that c(e)=lambda*f(e): Also a coherent EM-wave which moves with speed v while having a phase speed c(e).

Sep 03, 2015
The reason for it is actually quite trivial: the Maxwell's equations "don't know", that the density of vacuum is dynamic quantity fluctuating in time, which is proportional to the actual energy density of Maxwell wave in each moment and interval of space. This makes the solution of Maxwell wave dependent on itself via Hamiltonian and the resulting solution is much more complex. Whereas the Maxwell's equations consider flat stationary homogeneous vacuum all the time. From this reason it's impossible for Maxwell wave to resonate infinitely around atom without no radiation into outside. There is no boundary around atom (a reflector or something similar), which would prohibit it.


I have NEVER in my life read worse claptrap than this. Maxwell's waves suddenly have self awareness!!
There is NO WAVE that resonates "infinitely" around an atom. What do you mean by "infinite" in this context? There is a boundary around an atom. It is formed by the potential energy of the electron.

Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2015
Errata: "directionless" = "diffractionless". The spell checker striked again...

But now we are under article about "radiationless particles", which is second level of aether based trickery. Only the aether enables the existence of both the non-difracting photons, both non-diffracting nonradiating magnetic vortices confined into itself. And the Maxwell's theory gets doubly lost here. It even cannot explain the non-diffracting solitons, not to say the solitons, which are behaving like the nonradiating quantum orbitals at the same moment.
For simple dumb Maxwell's equations such an artifact would be complete sorcery.

YOU are not just doubly lost but meandering in Cloud-Cuckoo land. There are not any "non-diffracting" photons since a photon is an EM wave with continuously distributed EM-energy. The photon MUST diffract when it encounters double slits. A non-radiating atomic orbital is an electron-wave that has no kinetic-energy. See section 6 of my book Why does E=mc2.

Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2015
Iron bars can make decisions according to peer reviewed research.
Maybe 'waves' are self aware.

Use the new scientific method .. Let's vote, then we know for sure.


Sep 03, 2015
This means that c=(lambda)*f(p) which is required for a Maxwell-wave to be a coherent wave
From bad to worse...;-) Are you implying, that the speed of photon is variable function dependent on its wavelength/momentum? If the electron is the same wave, it should behave in the same way like the photon...;-)
Any pupil in high school knows that when you have a coherent-wave with phase speed c, frequency f and wavelength lambda these parameters are related so that c=(lambda)*f. lambda and f are invariant constants for a coherent wave. So how can the speed be varying. Sheesh: You are really out of your league. Why do you not start of posting on threads that suit your competence? Really you are just wasting everybody's time with your asinine arguments on this forum.

Sep 03, 2015
The photon MUST diffract when it encounters double slits
But it should also diverge even without any slit - just during its spreading across s free space.
Why? Like I have told you dummy: Not all light-waves diverge. Whether the wave diverges or not is determined by the source that emits it.
Why the laser beam diverges and its photons not?
Where has it been measured that a laser beam diverges in vacuum?
See section 6 of my book Why does E=mc2.
Thank You very much, but I already realized, what I should expect there. The discussion with you saved a lotta time for me.
And my discussion with you wasted a lotta my time since it is impossible to argue with a bigot who is not interested in studying what other people write, unless it agrees with what you WANT to believe.

Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2015
c=(lambda)*f. lambda and f are invariant constants for a coherent wave
I believed, that lambda is wavelength. The wavelength of light wave can indeed change, for example during gravitational or Hubble red shit... Does it mean, that the speed of light changes during it?
The speed of light indeed changes during gravitational redshift. Furthermore lambda is indeed wavelength and any idiot knows that it changes when you have to take Doppler shift into account. And ever idiot also knows that the frequency changes inversely. Maxwell's equations only give solutions for waves which have a speed c relative to the source, no matter with which speed the source is moving: And this speed is indeed constant and it indeed has the relationship c=f*lambda. Why do you want to argue with experts when you do not have the necessary competencies? And also refuse totread what they derive in terms of these competencies.

Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2015
it is impossible to argue with a bigot who is not interested in studying what other people write, unless it agrees with what you WANT to believe
OK, show me some testable predictions, which can be derived with your theory. This is my first utilitarian criterion for serious interest about any idea.


I have already given you the testable predictions: They are in my book which you refuse to read. Thus you are lying when you state that "this is my first utilitarian criterion" since you refuse to read what you already have in your hands after I have e-mailed my book to you. Stop ducking and diving and lying!

Sep 03, 2015
The speed of light indeed changes during gravitational redshift.
But the Maxwell's equations consider it invariant. You just violated the Maxwell's theory by itself. You introduced the aether..
I did not introduce aether: In free space the speed of light is c within all IRF's since there is NOT aether in free-space vacuum. A gravitational field is not empty space since it is part of the stationary matter-wave that surrounds surrounds the mass-energy of the wave. The field that is erroneously called "tunnelling-tails" Within this field the electric-permittivity and magnetic-permeability are different than they are in empty-space, and the wave thus refracts an EM-wave. Quit simple. A non-existent aether or a no-existent space-time curvature are NOT required to model this effect.

Sep 03, 2015
Iron bars can make decisions according to peer reviewed research.
Maybe 'waves' are self aware.

Use the new scientific method .. Let's vote, then we know for sure.


They do not "make decisions" when they react to an inbuilt "memory" in their physical structures. EM waves are actually "self-aware" in the sense that time does not exist within a single EM-wave. Thus even when it is a light-year across, it reacts instantaneously across its whole volume when the boundary conditions change at a position on its bounadries.

Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2015
I dont' see http://i.filmot.org/31O5aI3.gif - just a various interpretations of already known concepts and phenomena...
The interpretations of the known concepts are incorrect, Thus I give the correct interpretations and from these flow the predictions. You are really worse than incompetent if you believe that you can judge whether there are predictions by just looking at the content-summary; instead of reading the book objectively.

Within this field the electric-permittivity and magnetic-permeability are different than they are in empty-space, and the wave thus refracts an EM-wave
In Maxwell theory the waves aren't effected with another waves - so it's another violation of this theory.
So you are arguing that Maxwell's equations are not valid when such a wave enters glass which consist of matter-waves? Are you REALLY so stupid?
So instead of aether you're assuming another field
A gravitational field IS another field which is not aether.

Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2015
Most of glass matter consist of quarks and gluons, which look like elongated vortices instead of waves.
Experimental evidence please?. Nobody has EVER seen a quark or a gluon. They are the fictions of demented minds like yours. Furthermore, whatever glass exists off, a light-wave can move through it while being refracted and this refraction is perfectly modelled by Maxwell's equations; even though you in your dementia claim that it cannot be so.
Thus I give the correct interpretations and from these flow the predictions
Nope, the absence of relevant predictions serves as an indication of deeply ad-hoced basis of your theory.
There is no absence of relevant predictions in my book. This is what you want to argue without being willing to read the book: This is the mark of a non-scientific, dogmatic-fundamentalist. You do not want to be confused by logic and/or experimental facts. This proves that you are mentally insane. Is this typical of Eastern Europe?

Sep 03, 2015
Why not? If the state is homogeneous and non-disruptive; sure, trapped within the structure and the structure of the whole.

Sep 04, 2015
This is old knowledge. The letters of the Hebrew alphabet are flame shadows which denote entry angles to trap light into a vortex. Energy is simply a wave traveling in a straight line while matter is simply the same wave trapped in a circle

Sep 06, 2015
This is old knowledge. The letters of the Hebrew alphabet are flame shadows which denote entry angles to trap light into a vortex. Energy is simply a wave traveling in a straight line while matter is simply the same wave trapped in a circle
Why in a circle and not within a 3D cavity?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more