The electron is deemed an elementary particle because it has intrinsic stability a pinch-stability in a Bernoulli-Venturi model of the Higgs-condensate (aether)

[See also harmonic magnetism and THE FARADAY-MAXWELL TEASE (ppt-video trailer)]

The 511KeV to create a single electron is but a thousandth of the energy of a γ-ray at the same radius-equivalent quarterwavelength; But in fact it takes two, 511KeV γ-rays exchanging antisymmetric half's, to create an electron-anti-electron pair ...

The earliest theory for electron structure adapted a mid-1800's vortex-ring atom model (*), a closed-loop torus being the simplest stable form maintaining its volume: its perpetual bi-rolling (sock-rolling) supplies self-retentive energy-entropy pressure for size and shape equilibrium; Mass-energy is a perpetual entropy-vacuity bubble, scale~10-15 m, in the cosmic spatial aether superfluid.

* (Kelvin-ring, proposed by a mathematician, as well as 'solid-aether'ists.)

[electron iso-flow idem-section; colored for explanation] The electron though, has a charge, and its anti has the opposite,- while keeping the other character-properties the same ... whence the electron is two,-Kelvin-rings interlocked: as a bi-rolling stationary ring drags an outer flow cycle (*) that becomes a second ring structure itself by self-siphoning; the opposite-versions are mirror-symmetric, and inner and outer rings cycling, bi-rolling, equalize paired. The basic action of such a design is the flow twist: aether flowing into-and-out of the electron, twists right-handed or left-handed, electron or anti (tbd which is which). Thus positive and negative, attraction and repulsion are not a different charge-thing, but a chirality in the structure, twisting radial gradient, and energy-level coincidence or anticoincidence; as their magnetic fields are symmetric;- and, the electron is not exactly self-symmetric but the rings push around each other on a 45° axis, and so temporally average-out more symmetry.

* (Stationary in early-concept but having potential axial pair-spin moment, possibly free-compensating; and pairs are not necessarily symmetric nor ring-wise symmetric nor steady, as wedged-figure-zeros and figure-eight-through-figure-zero rings are more stable end-values in mutual exclusivity of parallele equal energies forever exchanging in sphericity: but which may distinguish muons etc. as positron-electron pair-annihilation produces matched, self-symmetric y-rays. [*] See also subconsequential topic, absolute cold.) [electron double-helicity flow lines;
 colored for explanation]

[NB. This is a second drawing: There is no distinctive space between core-entangled half-electron rings as helical lines coincide and merge uniformly filling the region: There are no actual rings; However, the center line of each ring-region may be either quieter, or more lengthwise wound; And the rings also spin, bi-roll, faster than light-speed via the angle of helicity within the electron mass-energy; And exhibit broad-wedging for the same reason. Also, Recognize that the electron-local aether itself is incrementally rotating with average helicity as the electron-magnetic spatially-extended top-energy cumulatively revolves about its centrality]

Early cosmic species: ('dark matter') [**]

In the very early pre-cosmic mass-energy-solvent, several electron-species existed: negative, positive-anti (positron), and quasistable neutral bi-electron (misthreaded halves, each opening and closing the other); negative, positive, and metastable neutral half-electron (half-photon) rings but that absorbed energy to become full-pair and disappeared altogether as a species. Fully-stable neutral full-electrons (zero-helicity neutra'lectrons) may also have existed in some abundance and, being noninteractive in much the way neutrinos are structurally so, neither attractive nor repulsive nor annihilative of electrons nor themselves, would have been 'cosmic dark matter'... but for that to be the modern sought cosmic 5× overburden, would have had to have been produced in very small quantity in the initial cosmic big bang and remained because it was nonannihilating and become more significant in abundance as the positrons and electrons mutally annihilated back to cosmic photon abundance....)

Preference for negative electrons, or positive, may have had an initial cosmos-wide magnetic driver enhancing anti-electrons as seeds for protons; but the main fallout from such a theory is that charge-conservation itself is not an intrinsic but an extrinsic rule: As neutrons crushed in the cosmic mass-holing event, co-annihilating subnucleon positrons and electrons met on its magnetic axis thus both contributing to and amplifying the same magnetic field; -only the subnucleon neutral-mass constituents longer-ago indistinct of charge could have survived and in fact mostly contributed most directly to the inner cosmic aether, while the charges containing a superfluity of energy retained more distinctness in renormalizing to this-cosmos micro-mass ... and the renormalization subdividing the cosmic magnetic moment would have created equal numbers of oppositely charged particles, but, the shape of the magnetic field, not precisely symmetric, would have thrust lopsidedly and therein created heavier protons one way, and lighter electrons, the other way; and thence remixing. (However, if the pre-cosmos were moving, or had a companion, it could have possibly created more electrons than protons or positrons, too). (*)

* (The competing theory is that a slight surplus electron charge destabilized antiproton production into more electrons exponentially swamping the cosmos, and remaining positrons were annihilated,- though there may be positrons at the outer fringe of the cosmos where the selection process was weakest-driven, mostly along the equator.... A remaining third theory is that nucleon subparticles are unequally energized and the holing event occurred so quickly that the renormalized micromass electrons and positrons did not mutually annihilate but preferred the generation of matter over antimatter: depending on the original pre-hole star.)

On top of that, the electron inverse-square fringe-field should be lower frequency wavelengths, which under acceleration, could run ahead, if waves in aether are like waves in water: longer waves faster;-- which should mean that acceleration of electrons loses some mass-energy,- which would be restored at the stopping end in point-to-point travel ... and which would yield an altogether different explanation for cosmic redshift,- by ELF neutrinos.

Corollary implications to such theory:- Black holes are indeed holes in the very aether, so empty that photons evaporate upon entry rather than traverse straight-line; and thence reflect inside on the high index of refraction of the surrounding space, never to exit except a tiny most-straight-out-from-center diminuent fraction; thus limiting energy density in the aether to absolute aether vacuity, albeit maybe unattainable in our cosmic hole --but the central region of the cosmos itself being uniform nearer-vacuity density; and if unbroken or reconnected quantal vortices remain from the early cosmos, faster-than-light travel, and escape from this cosmos.

* [Bi-roll, sock-roll, cf electron "spin" where not rotation, combined with hub roll, wheel rolling, cycling, is helical in total, distinguished by handedness; limiting the size of the annulus to the speed of light twisting along the circumference: This helicity is the most compact way of "solidifying" flowing energy in an aether under extreme infinite-cosmic pressure, -and whence occurs, and is the terse "answer";- but also a ring closing-up to itself, merging in complexor space, needing a non-compounding path to sustain efficiency, whence integral cycles: a Möbius toroid doubly-closed Möbius strip closed-loop screw-twisted helix-pipe. This also corroborates the skew perpendicular magnetic field carried-along by an electron in motion: whence positrons and electrons generating opposite magnetic field-helices, are oppositely twisted bi-rollers. And a fully-closed helical field does convert to open helix by linear motion.... Thus the discovery of charge-helicity and photon structure and electron internal structure, is and was therefor "almost obvious"]

** [The most obvious competing theory for dark matter/dark energy is the yoctoscopic 10-24 m-scale 0.7-tonne-scale black hole which swallows a proton or a few and acts like an ordinary atomic nucleus but extremely 'heavy' ('weakly interactive massive particle') passing 'unimpeded' through planets and stars, freely losing only its orbital electrons and a few electron-volts kinetic energy in scattering a few protons per meter-travel against its own 4×1029-scale equivalent while picking up gravity-swing energy behind the centers but possibly captured by neutron stars and certainly by other black holes, especially efficiently near the galactic center...created in abundance in the outer-cosmos since infinite-time-ago and existing in great density but 'evaporated' by 'hawking radiation' of 'virtual-pairs' down to nil-mass-hole-size radiating mass-energy at asymptotically-infinitely-slow rate and capable of surviving the collapse of occasional supernovæ, or the Higgs Field itself, and re-massing to yocto-scopic scale in the ultra-instant-density of Big Bang singularities as the major early dark matter superabundance and then re-evaporating once-again to nil-size releasing 'dark energy', to await another, cosmos...the cosmic-contemporary increase of 'dark energy' suggests that the 'dark matter' phase is rapidly waning...(note of-course that both, types, of 'dark' matter may contribute to the total in the physics-preference-for-biggest-coefficients)]


An E-M Analogy:

It is instructive to consider the internal-flow-work of the electron by its 'familiar' E-M-structure: The electron, in this analogy, consists of charge-flow everywhere-falling-back-in towards the center by reason of the rules of E-M: The outward flow is divergent and therefor pulling-apart and thereby losing kinetic energy and slowing and its magnetic field is collapsing and generating an electrostatic force in the same outward-direction to 'restore' outward flow; Cross-flow brings the current all-the-while-falling around to the opposite side where it continues to fall -inward- convergent and so gaining kinetic energy and generating a back-EMF electrostatic force to 'restrain' inward flow... The net-result is an always-inward-'celerating (outward-divergent-decelerating, inward-convergent-accelerating) charge-flow always-and-everywhere generating an outward electrostatic force 'field' depicted as 'the electron'. The exception is the core-hole where the flow deflects from convergent, to divergent, in an 'endless cycle' so there the magnetic field is instantaneously fixed and the electrostatic force switches from back-EMF to fore-EMF, through 'zero'... This is in depiction the same bi-rolling, with 'charge' described separately.

Inner state:

  • This state model is a continuum between two symmetric state-endpoints of one core or the other central with the surround flow symmetric, and midway, probably the lowest state energy, is a pair of cores wedged equal as diagrammed.
  • Electric field (aether):

  • if an electron is moved by an electro-voltaic field gradient, its whole electron-field is moved likewise
  • if an electron is moved by an electro-voltaic field, that field is moved relatively, similarly-oppositely
  • an electron is its field, extending to 'infinity'
  • an electron, by any dynamic EM-equivalence model, is not (cannot be) spherically distributed, by the Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem ('combing hair on a sphere yields at least one 'cowlick'--two realistically)
  • the (pro)portion of an electron's field beyond a neighbor is pro-pelled (retro-tracted beyond a nucleus proton)
  • the (pro)portions of that electron's field to the sides of that neighbor are effectually slightly repelled
  • that overhanging field is, by double-portion, as non-pulsive non-tractive mass (primitive strong-force electro-cancellation)
  • an electron is pushed as-by an electro-voltaic field, by the superposition of potentials being energy nonlinear in summation
  • an electron passing through the double-slit experiment interferes with its own field through the other slit: ie. with itself
  • an electron's field is accelerated and warped near a nucleus
  • an electron dropping into a lower orbital, loses mass-energy by its photon radiation (the nucleus loses an equal amount)
  • an electron dropping into a lower orbital, converts mass to charge by its photon radiation (the nucleus equally but opposite charge)
  • an electron in transorbital transition, passes through all its intermediate energy states until the photon is fully expressed (emitted or absorbed) over the photon-time
  • an atomic-emitted photon wavefunction, is spatially-lopsided alternately highside-then-lowside as the electron swings about the nuclear mass; a neutrino is central-symmetric e.g. an electron passing-center-into a proton
  • (note that an atomic-emitted photon is not found accompanied by a low-profile 'photino' in the opposite direction as the nuclear charge co-gyrates with the electron comparably to a mass-symmetric electron-positron-emitted-pair, so the nuclear charge may be riding center-line between the two masses and emitting nothing, or, maybe low-profile 'photinoes' abound as 'zero-point-energy')
  • the wavefunction of an electron in orbital, is an electron minus photon-wave emitted
  • the kinetic energy of an electron in an orbital equals its photon radiation; hence a photon is emitted electron-forward
  • the second, 1s2-electron has an ionization potential as-if the nucleus were charged n-.667-approximately, not n-1.000 nor n- 0.500; whence the 1s-electron cloud is not spherically tight (there may be room for fractionally more)
  • but increasing faster than linearly,- suggesting the overburden of electrons condenses the electron cloud or plugs those 1s "fractional holes"
  • but as the ground state does not immediately produce electrostatically chargeable hydrogen
  • (Cf at high pressure the electron pair in H2 is reported favoring one nucleus [proton], as e-e repulsion "corners" the electrons)
  • whence the orbital electron is technically not a wave function of regular wave shape, but a smear function of any smear shape depending on the addition of electrons ...
  • whence we have a clue as to the shape of the electron: as it has both an integrality which can overlap itself multiply-integrally (non ground states), and a charge-packing density nonlinearity
  • whence we have a clue as to the type of the aether: that it can do this
  • Electron-ring aether-flow:

    As the chiral in-flow of aether-plasma about the electron compresses radius to coil through the center it accelerates (venturi effect) and passes through at averagely 45°, equalling its own magnetic flux; At some velocity the apparent pressure may go to zero (optical) or negative (super-optical), the structural uniformity invert as unstable self-pinched flow (plasma pinch instability) and collapse to a wandering sub-string, or break into multiple sub-flow strings dancing around super-optically sampling the incoming flow; which finds its way back out to go entropic in due curvilinear course and slow down again to apparent uniform outflow.


    Protons are multiply-complex-wound structures, compared to electron simplicity, and may even consist of significant helical-broadside-distributed-flow and even linear-sheet-flow, in addition to helical-threading...

    A positive-charged particle, proton, positron, positive meson, muon,..., involves a tidal separation in an approaching negative electron, its high-energy center from its lower-energy fringe, causing the electron to split and either, entirely unravel (positron+electron), or partially wrap-around (electron+proton), letting-go some energy (photon) ... (protons were built in such a manner in the early cosmos mass-energy bead).

    Photon emission:

    (Research note: Asymmetrical photon-emission-pairs may result from mass-asymmetrical coorbitations: Test muons at IT-difference.)


    State energy (ionization potential; workfunction):

  • For the 1s1 electron: 13.6057 eV (Z)2 / 1-½(idem/511KeV) ; The 'idem' adjustment is for mass-energy-loss in photon-expression.
  • The 1s-electron orbital first-lowest energy level workfunction is W1s:Z ~ W1s* Z² / 1 - ½(idem/me) accurate to a few-%% for final adjustments, lightspeed-relativistics, co-orbital charge and mass balance, tidal draw reshaping, magnetic polarity flipping, rotation-revolution-[spin]-coupling.... The half-idem coefficient indicates that the photon gets half its energy from the electron mass and half from the nuclear positive-charge mass: The electron loses mass while retaining its charge (*).

    * (Charge, -electron and nuclear,- is apparently conserved, for all masses, but if any is lost, it must-be compensated in the equations.)

    * (The how-and-why the half-idem, may be likened to a quantum-mechanical-superposition-of-eigenstates, averaged: To 'deorbit' to a lower orbital, the electron must lose energy to a photon, and, in 'deorbiting' to a lower orbital, it extracts potential energy from the nucleus, converting it to kinetic, which it loses to the photon... the averaged quantum-superposition-of-eigenstates-accomplishment is half-of-all-itself plus half-of-all-extracted-none-itself: whence i.e. half-idem, plus tweaks... balance at half-and-half is expectable in canceling each of the two equal-but-opposite contra-momentum-field-overhangs... by analogy a space shuttle changes circular orbit by retrofiring half to lower its perigee and half more at perigee to lower its remaining apogee...)

  • 1s* is the semi-asymptotic coefficient; it is also related to the classic constant, me e 4 / 8 ε02 h 2, where note ε0 = 1 / μ0.
  • 1s:H is for Hydrogen at its reduced system mass-moment acceleration, 1/1837 = 0.000544, and likewise reduced system charge-path length: the total workfunction reduction being equivalent in first-order, (1836.2/1837.2) 13.6057 'W1s*' ~ 13.5983 'W1s:H'.
  • REF DATA: W1s* ~ 13.6057 eV ; W1s:H ~ 13.5985 eV ; me ~ 510999 eV

  • For two 1s electrons, 1s2: 2× 13.6057 eV (Z-¼)2 / 1-½½(idem/511KeV) ; The '-¼' adjustment is for the farside opposing electron.
  • (The '-¼' adjustment is actually '-0.30' for hydrogen, and exceeds '-0.35' above neodymium; due to 'nuclear-charge-field-lensing'.)
  • (For the second-electron 1s2-alone, it's the difference between the 1s2-total and the 1s1.)

  • There is no largely apparent relativistic-correction [*] before the mass-loss due to photon expression.

  • Since these energy equations are also directionally vectored, we may assume there exists a 0-s pe-state, (0 between ±1, ±2, ±3 ...)
  • sample comparisons
    e.g.1s1 calc.eVref: external
    He 1s1 13.60 (2)² / (1-0.00005)54.4054.42
    Al 1s1 13.60 (13)² / (1-0.00225)2.304K2.304K
    Cd 1s1 13.60 (48)² / (1-0.03164)32.36K32.34K (±1)
    U 1s1 13.60 (92)² / (1-0.1289)132.1K131.7K (±6)
    e.g.1s2 calc.eVref: external
    He 1s2 2× 13.60 (2-0.296)² / (1-0.0000)79.079.0
    Al 1s2 2× 13.60 (13-0.31)² / (1-0.0021)4.39K4.39K
    Cd 1s2 2× 13.60 (48-0.33)² / (1-0.0307)63.8K63.8K (±1)
    U 1s2 2× 13.60 (92-0.37)² / (1-0.1278)261.8K261.2K (±6)
    e.g.calc.eVref: external

    Note that the mass of a free-electron is a measured-constant in free-space, but the mass of an orbital-electron, and of its nucleus, is less by photon-emission: cf a positron-electron pair-annihilation is a full-reduction of both masses; This factors in computing orbital energies, atomic-model theory, forced-nuclear-radiodecay rates,...

    This shows hint that electronic charge is fundamentally quantized, while elementary particle mass is variable, but does not define a crossover at which small-enough-mass begins to lose charge... but a nuclear charge of Z=138 will runaway-destruct its 1s1-electron, and then self-destruct (radiodecay) itself, instead of a negative-IT, (The highest stable should be Z=137 at mass-loss around 495KeV).

    The process by which atomic electron orbitals are stable may also include non-radiativity; possibly by further negative-radiativity energy-detenting; There may also be low-radiativity unstable folded-orbital 'seamount' states, delaying but not harboring, crossed during transorbital electron descent and expressed as noise on the photon ... and possibly deep subatomic subground semi-states on the way to pe-state.

  • (One advanced atomic quantum theory is that an absolute-bottom pe-state electron does not revolve but bi-rotates about the nucleus, its core flow concentric, slightly elevated energy at the state-endpoint, its own momentum-flow bi-rotating as bi-revolving about the nucleus and is thus indeed an electron 'cloud' and has new quantum states as allowable condensations ... A new type of covalent bonding then puts both core flows nucleus-concentric in the midway state.)
  • Note, the wavefunction of an orbital electron is both its free-standing helicity circularly reaccelerated, minus its emitted photon-structure-wavelengths.... Note that this may imply a directional correlation between rapid-successive photon emissions.... This also implies that meso-nuclear standing-tiers cannot be reached by electrons dropping through orbitals: that must regain their emitted-photon-structures to become near-nucleus standing-tier-electrons.... This also means that standing-tiers are cosmic-angle-locked or nearly so: requiring energy to steer a turn. (Standing-tiers may-or-not be stable, but are stop-states, not orbitals.)

    (Photon structure is observed in interferometry as near-constant-frequency, whence we deduce the photon is fore-expressed from the orbital momentum at the top as the electron begins to drop to lower orbital and back-expressed at the bottom as the electron reaches top speed and restability: a wave-frequency-compensatory emission: Remarkably, An electron 'knows' where it's going before it does, Or, the photon-wave straightens itself out as it travels away and there are nonemissive Bernoulli-Venturi motions of the aether.)

    Some approximate ratios: [coarser at the lower numbers]

  • 1s1: (N1/N2)2
  • 1s2: (N1+.3333/N2+.3333)2
  • 2s1: (N1+.333/N2+.333)2 (but 4x-smaller than for 1s)
  • 2s2: (N1+.75/N2+.75)2 - Orbital quantum-locking is not based on total electron mass-energy, that being 511KeV over eg. 13.6 eV for hydrogen orbit energy, but on electron wake-energy and field-curtailing: the faster the electron revolves about the nuclear center, the more the electron unwinds its fringe helicity (basically at the same range as the nuclear charge) ... the deeper an electron orbits, the less mass-energy it has, and its orbit is tighter not only by quantum-locking proportions but by that total ... orbitals that are closer to the nucleus involve energies transitioning between photon and neutrino structures (which apparently does not exist in the equation) ... if a subatomic potential field has tiers near the nucleus, where three or more electrons might fit-in, the natural occurrences may be indetectibly rare as the nuclear charge near-field resonances entangle more than one equivalent, and any two tend to gang and outweigh the third and close it ... and the nuclear nearest-field is lumpier (See also absolute cold) ... And in the nucleus the electron core double-ringlike structure is entangled.

    Q.M. avoids describing the electron itself, instead assuming a point charge (but even Einstein understood that particles are extended in space, not infinitesimal points)--

  • the total energy of electron-self-repulsion is to be calculated as a unit:
  • two electrons in the 'identical place' would calculate as two-units charge ⇒ four-units of energy;
  • (cf electron-positron-attraction is calculated zero charge, but squirm away as photons);
  • By implication, the charge-attraction-repulsion must include 'overhang' etc...

  • In the electron 'rocket' frame, the nuclear passing-side Charge is condensed by the Relativistic Factor √(1-(v²/c²)),
  • while the electron's own Acceleration through its orbit is increased by the Factor twice--
  • because the nuclear frame is contracted once: resulting in its narrow-side Radius Of Curvature contracted twice...
  • Totalling-- a single factor increase, of Angular Momentum over Charge Attraction...

  • And, the nuclear 'observer' frame agrees: in that the electron, passing-side Charge, is condensed by the Factor once,
  • but while also the electron 'clock' is 'time-dilated', slowed, by the Factor once--
  • resulting in its own Acceleration Measure increased by the Factor twice: because passing d = ½ a t² didn't change...
  • But, However,--

  • The same, nuclear 'observer' frame, does not-agree with these results themselves: because,--
  • though the passing-side electron Charge is condensed by the Relativistic Factor once,
  • the 'observed' Relativistic Mass of the electron is increased only, once... not twice...
  • And so-- there's a Factor missing, in the simplistic Relativity Theory....
  • [under further construction]


    A parallel discussion/insight on the electron radius function is found in answering the question of how much mass-energy is in the potential-energy field around a gravitational mass: Briefly, the question arises in ascertaining that 'potential energy' is, mass-energy: it is where an in-falling 'test particle' gets its kinetic energy by immediate-direct 'commandeering' and conversion of potential energy, ΔE = ∫Qq/4πε0R² dr for charge (and mostly not from its own, mass); The point is then made 'how much', and while the potential force may be large and constant holding charged particles in orbits, as soon as something starts to 'fall' in and convert the local-field mass-energy potential to kinetic, the near-field becomes diminished, its force reduced, and near-field objects follow partially-released paths 'backward', appearing as 'like magnetic induction' to the simple-observer, (we are more familiar with electromagnetic, induction, than gravitational, because its effect is 1042.6 more-noticeable, but, deep inside electric charge 'cores' the effect should be calculably significant as forces and energies slowing the in-fall, amplifying convections, sucking the mass-energy out of the center charge...a point-charge ought even exhibit 'black hole' capture of opposite charges, slowing of time, and 'evaporation')... Simply put, potential-energy is power-limited and the draw on charge-energy/mass-energy by a librating particle is omnidirectional inverse-square-law 1/r² at the speed of light c, (which in columns ascending or descending compensates linearly and manifests more horizontally as inverse-law 1/r), and, this scientific-phenomenon is commonly labeled as 'another fundamental force...'

    (Aside note that as the test-particle gains kinetic energy its mass-energy increases but unlike the gravitational case we have no indication that charge increases except that in the extreme-velocity case the 'special-relativistic-headlight' effect should, and in general the magnetic field of moving charge can, represent, the equivalent of increasing attraction, of same-charges moving the same direction and opposite-charges oppositely, and its gain compounds, But also conversely as photons are emitted, its mass-energy decreases and its deBroglie wavelength increases...)

    In this way there is no point charge (cf nor point mass: see gravity), because it is distributed as mass-energy in its potential field: the equational balance is in the 'static' force vs. 'extractable' energy of a potential-energy field and the local charge density of objects: A particular-given potential-field source can only provide up to its own total mass-energy, and that's distributed 4π around and by inverse distance uniformly, to the first-order Galilean-Newtonian approximation adapted to charges, and accessible at the speed of light (or gravity), and objects moving inward or outward, even in orbit, upset their own near-field...it's an equation to be resolved...

    (We might use Einstein's General Relativity to estimate mass-energy-per-potential-energy, even as his Special Relativity was used to estimate mass-energy E = mc² , and then assume the same for the electron radius function, But note that potential-energy equations also always lead to 'external infinities' and interpretations of cosmic scale interactions perceived locally as mass, charge, and force with negligible tails that are now not-so negligible.)

    Meanwhile unlike, the case of gravity, its outer regions decrease potential energy field residue--so, the charge radius function has some, difference (tbd)...

    MACH'S PRINCIPLE: [2015/5]

    An item called "Mach's Principle" (reputedly vouchsafed by Einstein as a reason for General Relativity) suggesting that every particle interacts with every other to great distance even across the cosmos, may be 'realized' by considering the atomic "Simple Harmonic Oscillator" where the lowest energy level is non zero, half-a-step of energy remains that it can't radiate, but changing the parameters changes that energy--which means every particle or object knows all the others around by their parameters... such 'oddity' turns objects into 'nonradiative' antennas broadcasting information by signaling their objective parameterizations...

    MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS are strange or wrong-- [2015/5]

  • (See the correction to Einstein's Special Relativity mispresumptuous simultaneity of future time bias)
  • The evanescent wave outside a total-internal-reflection is calculably instantaneous but not its energy
  • The evanescent wave exponential-decay envelope implicates longitudinal force in a particulate aether
  • As like gravity, magnetoelectric potential fields are power-limited cf unlimited ⇒ infinite total energy
  • The subject of Advance Fields is apparently vast and widely accepted in the electrodynamics sciences
  • Faraday's Common Ground Paradox drive path and induction path form an extra loop betwixt (diag.)
  • Faraday's rule-of-magnetic-induction flux area is a severely-smeared-Retarded-Time-Field (diag.)
  • Faraday's rule-of-magnetic-induction seems to cross its flux area to be a forward EMF (diag.)
  • Some professors [elsewhere] ignore the tangent-vector of the E&B-field-flows in photons
  • The only back-EMF in Faraday's magnetic-flux-induction is the wires' near-field (diag.)
  • But transversal flux-induction can be canceled: its force might be longitudinal (diag.)
  • Nevertheless force calculation by 'feely' instead of 'touchy' does not, cancel (diag.)
  • Said field equations infer but fail to define virtual electrons flowing in capacitors
  • (the magnetic field about a capacitor without is sine-integral with a narrow dip)
  • Particle fields overhanging others may reduce each others' directional strength
  • Said field equations should implicate and define photon-photon interactions
  • Said field equations should implicate and define the structures of neutrinos
  • Said field equations should implicate and define electron deBroglie waves
  • Said field equations should implicate and define electron inner structure
  • Said field equations should implicate and define mass-energy gravity
  • Fields interact with fields because that's what particles are made-of
  • Straight wires are closed loops in end-to-end measurements; etc....
  • (I'm expecting to revise Maxwell's Equations for speed-of-field-force vs. speed-of-potential-energy, to the new subject of 'magnetoelectronics', to upgrade this science...)


    [2018/10/10] An example of field speed end-on FTL, where 'cylinders of energy' meet, e.g. magnetic pulse-cylinders from two parallel drive wires meet, and cancel their energy in that space where they coincide, that energy must flow away like-infinite speed (the roundness of cylinders touching),—but more-likely at merely 41%-faster-than-light (the end-on speed of magnetic field 'lines', or, the equivalent end-on dipolar-electric-field-flow-of-neutral-space-itself)...

    [2018/10/10] How does a 'theory' assign or attach properties to particles—example: electric-charge-field exists in photons and electrons, and positrons negative-equally, and space-itself, where photons pass through each-other rarely nucleating massive particles... so something underlyingly simple is-but-isn't the charge, property—herein a spacetime-helicity...

    A premise discovery under the title,

    Grand-Admiral Petry
    'Majestic Service in a Solar System'
    Nuclear Emergency Management

    © 2002, 2006, 2008-2011, 2013-2015, 2018 GrandAdmiralPetry@Lanthus.net