GTHEORY thesis CH 10a
CHAPTER 10
THE
FUNDAMENTALS OF
ELECTROMAGNETISM
REEXAMINED
UNDER
GTHEORY
PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

ATOMIC ELECTROMAGNETIC
PHENOMENOLOGY374
REEXAMINED

A NOVEL, IN DEPTH
EXAMINATION OF377
E.M THEORY FEATURING THE
ELECTRICAL
DERIVATION OF A MAGNETIC FIELD

THE PAULI EXCLUSION
PRINCIPLE AND THE378
QUANTUM
INTEGER PRINCIPLE
FROM PRINCIPLES TO LAWS

THE CONVERSE ANALYSIS OF A
MAGNETIC FIELD390
CAUSING
ELECTRICAL PHENOMENA IN A CONDUCTOR
TECHNICAL
3
:
SOLUTIONS TO THE
PROBLEMS
400
ASSOCIATED WITH E=MC^{2}
AND ME EQUIVALENCE THEORY
ATOMIC ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENOLOGY REEXAMINED:
ABSTRACT:
Gtheory
firmly rejects the precept of the Lorentz transformation theory which suggests
that an emf only exhibits a charge when stationary and that it gains a magnetic
field only when moving as well as the Einsteinian idea that a magnetic field in
one reference frame becomes an electric field in another. Who has ever noticed
a stationary emf? Even singular electrostatic charges and magnetic fields
emanating from stationary sources are continuously being propagated outwardly
at 'c' in order to maintain their continuance.
In any case we have already determined that any cosmean concept of 'stationary'
at any point on Earth is actually relative. I have also provided a convincing
argument herein, that mathematics doesn't readily relate to actual objective or
even case specifically; subjective reality such as that Lorentzian conclusion
or as we will later see his 'invariance'.
An
electromagnetic field is considered by classical physics to be one of the
fundamental forces of nature, so with regard to magnetic and electrical theory
there is no necessity for any change to classical laws and formulas. The
following is simply a novel explanation of the phenomena of electromagnetism by
Gtheoretical analysis, and this is required in order to provide substantial
support for the quantum, atomic and cosmological theories which are being
postulated herein and presented as a better fit model for understanding the
interplay of universal mechanics.
If as
previously described, an electron can be envisioned to possess an imbalanced
but eve electric charge 'elastically' positioned and oriented at ninety
degrees to its magnetic dipole and it does not exhibit planetary motion around its
nucleus, then the following is likely to be a more plausible explanation of
electromagnetism.
The jury is
still out on causality or causation of supposed charged particle angular
momentum and the spin moment relationship between magnetic and charge fields.
This appears to be very problematic (but until the arrival of Gtheory, it was found
necessary in the standard quantum model to provide missing quantum states) and
there is not even any consensus in the academy whether an electron is a non
existent point source or not, or whether it indeed has continuum charge/dipole
dimensions, shape and/or 'mass'. I agree with the latter because I contend that
all matter whether describable or not is non virtual and must have size even if
it can never be visible by human observers.
If this is
not the case then electrons must by default simply be virtual entities and
describable as simply being interference crossing points of the vibrating
charge and magnetic fields. This is disproved as a plausible postulation by the
hard data. Such a disproof is able to be confidently declared because electron
beams can be forced by applied 'energy' to leave the atom and atomic matter and
be attracted to travel in an electromagnetically 'bendable' beam* of particles within
a vacuum towards a high positive charge. I.e. The old fashioned vacuum tube TV
set.
*This
then provides considerable support to the position I've taken, in that an
electron is concluded to be as I have indicated in the diagram herein which
shows it consisting of both a magnetic dipole as well as a negative charge
particle dipole (negatively weighted disparate dipole actually).
Something
else that should be of profound interest is; that Maxwell notwithstanding
there is no consensus in science regarding any equation for the motion of
charged particles; full stop. I will be addressing such things as double slits
and quantum mechanics further on.
ASSERTATIONS:
A NOVEL, IN DEPTH EXAMINATION OF E.M
THEORY FEATURING THE ELECTRICAL DERIVATION OF A MAGNETIC FIELD:
A quantum
state analysis and explanation by Gtheory: The mechanics of a current 'flowing'
in a conductor causing the induction of a magnetic field.
Note: once again this begins to appear like another physics lesson.
However the reason for this assertation should soon become clear; and that is
to show that the conclusions which have been drawn from erroneous fundamental
assumptions have led to the current debacle between quantum and classical physics.
The thrust of the exercise is to make a strong case that electrons are
always particles and never an electromagnetic wave.
Simultaneous with that, I will attempt to show:
1/ that eV is only a charge and not 'energy'.
2/ it is protons and not electrons that are the emitters of both light
and electromagnetic particles.
3/ show (in collusion with another section) how electrons in a beam are
not emitted in continuous streams.
4/arrive at the proven conclusion that with regard to electron behavior
in a conductor, the Quantum Integer Principle (QIP) is a child of Ohm's and
Coulomb's laws.
There are a
couple of main points to consider.
(a) According
to Coulomb; by his formula F=k.Q1.Q2/d^{2}, a charge is a 'force' and
not 'energy'. 'Energy' is only produced (used) when a motion is the result of
the application of a force (in this case electron motion) and the 'energy' is
the product of the applied Vcharge and the motion of 'n' electrons per second.
(b) All the formulas
applicable to ohms law are related to one second because 1Amp is the rate of
motion of one coulomb 'n' of e charge electrons per second past any given
incrementally realizable point. This means that a watt is only an instantaneous
value and true power relatable to joule
of energy is actually a watt/sec; and a Joule of 'energy' which is a
quantitative value is not actually realized until the second is up and all the
electrons have flowed, (mathematical proportioning aside). Also at this macro
level, power is the product of the motion of a coulomb of electrons/sec times
the Vcharge. So power is also the product of the Vcharge and the coulomb (Cb)
'n' per second, which is, being expanded; P(w/s)= Cb/s.V so 1W/s is 1A/s.1V.
This relationship is usually shortened to the incorrect form P=VI. (P=EI).
Note: I am using V for emf instead of E
which is used herein for 'energy'. Note also: The watt second is NOT a
watt/second/second because watts are not coulombs per second, per second; the
W.s is related by V.I/sec.
Perhaps this may be confusing, it might be better
understood by gaining the realization that the formation of the watt second
BEGAN AND FINISHED OVER THE SAME TIME DURATION AS THE AMP RATE WAS FILLING THE
JOULE UP; being one Coulomb in one second being forced by one volt. Putting it
another way… Consider the second in the formulas. Over the duration of that
second a Joule was being created at a build rate, while a watt was being
realized for the whole duration of the second and once the Joule was realized
so was a watt/second…so a Joule and a watt/second are essentially the same
thing except that they have differing subjugative qualities. Clear as mud? Also
refer to ENERGY definition.
OK THEN: This
all means that; if at a constant emf of one volt, one coulomb per second
results in one Joule per second, then ten Cb/s gives ten Joules and ½ Cb/s
gives ½ a Joule. Whoa!
Yep, that's
right! So in that case then (and in keeping with ohms law and coulombs law) one
eV causing the passage of one electron for one second will give 1eJ of 'energy'.
In other words; just ONE ELECTRON will pass the emission point and traverse the
conductor (with an R of one ohm) and take ONE SECOND for the traverse!
Note: This is not necessarily the same
electron.
"OK now
you're getting ridiculous"! If that's what you think, I must now give some
serious push back myself and retrieve my 'rep'. So I'll begin to do this by
analyzing electron flow in a quantum size conductor.
THE PAULI EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE AND THE
QUANTUM INTEGER PRINCIPLE; FROM PRINCIPLES TO LAWS:
From
conclusions derived elsewhere, we know that an eV is the voltage (really charge
force in
*This
will be argued around in circles. I can understand the concept that the earth
is falling because it's acceleration energy is being constantly converted into
angular displacement inertial energy but I can't understand how you can call a
force 'not a force' without any similar transference of the energy derived from
a non force (which by reason should be zero) and end up with a definable value
in Joules! Maybe I'm as dumb as I look but last time I looked away from the
mirror and into a science lesson I found that E=mv. Something with mass is
moving in this elctrodynamic example; you know electrons.
So
now I'll probably get the argument that 1/ F=ma and 2/ nothing is accelerating
so there's no force. Cute! But let me introduce you to E=F.
t. again in case you missed it. The time is per second in watt
seconds/Joules. Got it?
There
is a sleight of hand reason why you get told that EMF is not really a force and
we will come to that and more scientific fraud later.
Not
all forces cause a visible or definable action but energy usage is the result nevertheless.
The following might help your conceptualize: take a proton and ve muon which
are attracted to each other by Coulombic force and they are prevented from
moving by a 'humbug' say. I am going to tie gravity with energy later but for
now just accept that the force is acting over time and the whole while
particles will be emitted into the vacuum by the nucleons because they are heating
up.
How
are they heating up? Very simple; they are being compressed and the EWF will
signal the QLs to emit particles as BBR or thermal emissions which is being continually
replaced by the graviton component of energy and after the force is removed the
compression stops and if the graviton energy is insufficient to recharge the
energy state the nucleons will become cool and be open to reception of BBR etc. Nothing ever occurs in an energy vacuum.
That's
actually true: However at the moment let's consider that we have a magical emf
source that doesn't 'disCHARGE'; it remains the same at 1eV. Now under normal
theoretical circumstances; a conducting system doesn't lose electrons, it loses
charge by the changing chemical (or other) conditions that cause the
(coulombic) Vcharge because not as much charge returns to the source because
of the 'energy' used and lost. It is important to note that the electrons don't
CHANGE except for their component of velocity. Nether do they become lost. THEY
ARE BEING USED; but how?
Imagine very
simply that our conductor is just a long line of atoms with a conductive Fermi
band. Normally because of QIP this conductor would not allow electrical
conductance because it takes a realistic cross sectional area of multiple atoms
to allow a 'many and variable' quantity of atomic Fermi bands to become
involved under the predicates of QIP to allow the motion of one electron in the
viable conductor which uses one electron joule when forcing one electron
in the shell of one atom to move to a higher energy level; also subject to
PEP. However if we ignore that (and that huge sentence) for the moment, and
understanding that when all else remains equal, the charge remains a powerful
and constant force, then we must understand that the electrons in the conductor
are constrained to come into charge balance with the nuclei in the conductor.
I.e. Just as many ve charges as +ve charges. This is a charge parity
constraint.
The instant
the eV was applied to the one ohm conductor, the charge was transferred at 'c'
through the nuclei, which all gained a proportional share of the charge in the
near field. The shared nuclear charge becomes balanced in the first split
second instant between the first and last atom whilst the electron balance is yet
to come into parity along the length of the conductor. There is a delay for
electron parity to be reached because one of the reasons is that an electron is
a (non Poincare invariant force caused) (energy state
limited velocity)
ve charge containment vessel.
Note: Lorentzian
relativistic charge field invariance would void this phenomenology completely
unless Dirac comes to the rescue and voids the relativity itself and we are
back to a normal space time invariance situation..
Now we should
be able to consider in the first instant that the first atom now has an extra
electron in its shells, so it has gained a net 'e' ve charge of 1eV (at
first), whilst the last atom at the positive terminal of the micro cell has a
net positive charge of ditto which, because it is caused by the loss of an
electron, we can refer to as a hole. That electron won't instantly hop back in
for parity purposes because it is Mr. Coulomb who demands that the only way
left open to return to parity (because it is being subjugated to QIP/PEP and
Fermi regulation) is to travel into the now closer and
more positive emf
terminal, so the emitted electron travels unerringly towards the positive
terminal of the emf source by resultant coulombic force attraction.
However as the
quantum and Fermi conditions allow over time (fully caused by the velocity variant
in delayed field interactions with nuclei)*, the spare electron and hole will
migrate towards each other over one second (because a Joule is essentially a
watt second so the delivery of the eJ also takes one second) and meet in the
middle where they cancel each other out, and once that has occurred, both
electron and charge parity have been achieved and if the eV remains, another
electron is then forced into the conductor and the process repeats.
Note: We now have the notion of current flow
and notional charge propagation in the reverse direction. The QIP/PEP and Fermi
restrictions are related to the length and cross section of the conductor as
well as the atomic characteristics which all results in the notion of
conductivity in that sense and resistance in the former sense.
*The
electrons don't move linearly at 'c' but they do move at almost 'c' (fine
constant variant) in and between orbitals. Linear conceptualization of electron
flow is just a sum of average migration. We are analyzing the migration of just
one electron and under the conditions stated that will take exactly one second because
the whole thing is controlled by the interrelated laws of physics. This is also
the reason for the phase lagging in electromechanical theory. The second is
actually arbitrary.
While the two
bilateral 'notionally equal and opposite charge and hole entities' were making
their way down the conductor they were upsetting the voltage state of any atom
they became intimately associated with at any given moment. This caused the
atoms when they became so involved, to see a time delayed and individual
voltage change in their near field charge which was then applied to the counter
charge in the nuclei EMF sharing chain and because of that; this was voltage
change was simultaneously subtractive from (against) the applied 1eV voltage by
n1/n. So now that portion of Vcharge must be made up to the expected terminal
charge by the electrochemical or electromagnetic process so involved, and 'energy'
becomes used and some will also be emitted to the vacuum.
This counter
charge phenomenon caused the exhibition of a zero charge resultants at the
nuclei (but not the ends of the conductor) for the complete duration of the
event. It was this that prevented any further electron injection into the end
of the conductor until the total electronnuclear charge parity had finally
been reached. When that finally occurs and travels to the end of the conductor (at
'c'); then another electron will be forced by the arrival of that positive
charge at its end to move into the Fermi conductance band toward that now positive
nucleus and once more the hole is migrating by a reverse charge process to meet
it in the middle of the conductor and when that occurs parity is reached and
the reverse charge which was acting against the emf is removed and while the eV
remains the process will repeat at one second intervals.
Note: In visualization of this event it becomes reasonable to assume
that such a process might vary a little, but never enough to reach the charge
threshold required for unusual electron injection, which would be likely to be
close to or just below 1eV. This predicates that ther will be extraneous emissions to the vacuum but never more than
the pertinent laws will allow at any given voltage across any given resistance.
This because law is law and force has to produce motion to somewhere whenevr
possiblt and BBR is a possibility. If all the conditions remained perfcet then
such BBR would be quantum stepped. It is this imperfection which allows apparently
random BBR.
So this is all theoretically perfect but in a real
world conductor the average of such electron actions is proportional to that process
less losses by fault process and the indicated emissions.
In effect this causes an equal counter force
to become reflected back to the eV source through the nuclei, so in that case
the charge that originally forced an electron to move into the conductor then
become zero by opposite charge summation. This remains the case until electron
charge balance is achieved. That occurs (this particular case specifically) in
one second, because the electrons in the conductor while totally reliant on
their own charge imbalances to enable them to arrive at parity, find the
process quantum stepped because of the '
non relativistic invariance' in
quantum emf lag. Because of this; being that the electrons must negotiate many
definable and various charge lag caused, Fermi and QIP/PEP state obstacles the
process takes exactly one second.
Note:
This second is an arbitrary number but it is part of the whole relationship
from which the eV was derived in the first place. It is according to ohm's law
where the R is 1 ohm. So; we are able to conclude that Ohm's law is a
derivative of QIP with PEP and Fermi law subjugation.
Whether you have previously recognized that or
not;
this relates quantum and classical physics, and from this you
should be able to see an avenue (by the conductivity and the cross sectional
area and length of a copper conductor say) to calculate the time taken for a
quantum state action by QIP at 1eV(eJ) by calculating the time taken for the
electron to move through one atom. This is all explained elsewhere. Refer to
quantum definition.
We can see
from this (as well as the following assertation) the reason why electrons leave
the surface of a cathode in discreet clusters. This is because the replacement
electrons take quantum subjugated time to reemerge at the surface of the medium
because of the same QIP, PEP and Fermi constraints.
Note: During high temperature plasma events the clusters can be derived
from deep within the cathode at the same time that the holes cause a similar
event to occur at the anode. This results in atomic bond failure and perhaps
complete atomic deprecation in small areas. The corresponding electron
emission/reception in packets actually leaves damage pits behind in both
surfaces.
Other crucial references are available. Refer to
the sections…
ELECTRON
BEAM SLIT BEHAVIOR, and THE DERIVATION OF ME EQUIVALENCE.
This one
second delay is the case by ohms law which has been derived by observance and
in no small way because an ohm is dependant on the conductivity and cross
sectional area of a conductor. So even though conductor sizes become variables,
with all else being equal; the resultant quantum forces that prescribe the
predicted 'flow' rate of the electrons are always the SAME. In that case, if
the lone electron didn't take one second then the behavior would be in defiance
of ohm's law and by extension The QIP. This in essence makes QIP a law in
electrical analysis and no longer a principle regardless of whether it is a
quantum wave function restriction or not. We are not dealing with that subject
here.
Note: delayed and stepped behavior
is a characteristic of quantum level processes, and it is absolutely amazing
that such is mathematically required to be so at this
electrodynamics
quantum level. This could mean in an astoundingly profound way that Ohm's, and
probably Coulomb's law are causative of QIP which is the subjugative of PEP
which otherwise hangs around in fermions without a known cause.
In fact this legally necessary electron
propagation behavior should likely be taken as theoretical proof that PEPQIP
relationship assertion is fact. However when it comes to 'chicken and egg'
resolutions I go with the gravity determined light speed limit caused emr lag
as the whole cause of QIP and PEP at the quantum level. Lorentz et al were
wrong in requiring 'quantum emr wave invariance' as will be proven later; but
they can be forgiven because then they didn't know anything about the quantum
world back then: You can't be! You will be held aacountable in historical
analysis.
You might not
agree at all with any non relativistic arguments and give some lame but typical
'push back' along the lines of… "But quantum physics doesn't obey the laws
of classical physics". I will counter by this proof that it does and must
wherever such laws can be shown to be empirically applicable. The reason for
such an opinion as yours being widely held is because of the lack of
understanding of the likely phenomenology which is herein presented. I am also
forced to opine that you who so object are of the weird opinion that
occurrences at the quantum level are somehow linear as well as invariant which
would cause absolute inelasticity! I will also refer you to the fact that
propagation delays in low power data transfer devices are a real problem which
is further disproof of Lorentz and co's theories as we will see.
We must also
consider the theoretical case whereby we have a relatively very short and fat
conductor that's many atoms thick but only one atom long, and which still has a
resistance of one ohm. In that case the electron will not be able to pass
through until all the atoms in the only and facing layer have arrived at a
state of charge parity*. I must admit that this is just as difficult for me to conceptualize
but it must be the case because of the pertinent laws and formulas that we have
just been analyzing. We should be able to conclude from this that relative to
conductors of various sizes the proportionality of the charge and electron flow
components of resistance is variable but it is
all evened out in the sum.
Related
note: In analyis of the likely activity of the conductance band gaps it would
appear that the outer layer would be the most 'uncluttered so to speak' and
therefore the area of least resistance. If you refer to the chapter regarding
the conductance of electricity and electromagnetism you will notice that there
will be an induced nucleon charge tilt towards one side of the nucleons in the
same direction for all and the result should be a slight charge across the
conductor which will cause the electrons to tavel morew to one side than the
other. This factor as well as the previous 'skin'effect' factor will produce a
slight variation in the relationship of the eV and the J in normal practice.
All this will do is cause a slight change in the conductance/resistance of any
conductor relative to size and in the macro world this is not a problem but
when microscopic conductors become envisage such phenomenon need to be
addressed.
*ignoring
the probabilities of electron tunneling for this theoretical analysis.
If you use
some imagination you should be able to consider that when a greater voltage and
a subsequently massive number of electrons are involved, that the time delay
does becomes averaged even though the properties of the conductor will still
affect the abilities of the electrons in their constant efforts to achieve
charge parity. I.e. Electrons are forced in and out of the conductor at 'c' but
the rate of the flow is adjudicated by (among other things) the resistance of
the conductor. It is important to realize that the rise time of the initial emf
upon its application DOESN'T CHANGE it's just that in this case it is
temporarily prevented by nuclei blocking from being transferred back to the
charge source. At real world values of E, I and R the process becomes so even
that equal voltages are able to be measured at equal distances along the length
of the conductor.
So we are
able to reason that such quantum level propagation delays are not realized
under observations of normal everyday electronic and electrical processes.
However this delay phenomenon does begin to raise its head when attempts are
made to engineer 'very low power' data transfer devices down to 0.15Vdo. Non
clocked handshaking protocol technologies such as MTCMOS are under development
as I write in order to hopefully ameliorate that propagation delay problem as
much as possible. The reasons for this phenomenon at such low power levels will
be shown mathematically to align well with the just noted conclusions of this
theory. I.e. The process just described creates a psuedo resistance increase at
low power levels as well as the noted propagation delays which remain
inexplicable and not predictable under any relativistic phenomenology. The
Gtheory examination just undertaken has predicted this finding of computer
engineers. That is serious model support for Gtheory.
Link; http://comp.uark.edu/~smithsco/DI_low_power.pdf
If a delay
were to be required then it stands to reason that one could possibly be
engineered by the utilization of multiple parallel low power conductors or
semiconductors as a novel approach to the engineering of 'delay lines' without
the need for the normal space intensive technology. Of course with suitable
semiconductor junction doping and voltage variations one could achieve the
phenomena of electron tunneling which could also upset the delay time and this
could be voltage or quantum (photon) controlled to permit other novel
applications.
Now backing
up a little: Even though the vast majority of nuclei initially achieve charge
parity at 'c', they are all being continuously perturbed by electrons moving
through their conductance bands. This causes the charge from the emf source to
be continuously required to be transferred in the opposite direction to the
electron flow. This charge component of the 'energy' being used is being
continuously drawn from the voltage source and accepted back in at the other
end; less losses*. The voltage source has now been discharged (theoretically in
one quantum step) and the power used is by the formula P=EI/sec.
Returning to
our analysis of the quantum level phenomenology:
In order for
another electron to be injected, the continuation of or the introduction at
another time of an eV must be applied by the voltage source or this can't
occur. As this continues we would normally notice that the source is becoming
discharged. Where did the 'energy' and charge go? Answer: They were used up as
power/sec. to emit (as described) photons, BBR and other virtual force losses
to the environment but mostly at the 'work' site, being the resistor (lamp
filament etc.) or electromagnet coil or whatever.
*The
losses are the priority subject of the next section.
The main
reason that an eV was historically concluded to be 'energy' and not the charge
it really is, is likely because of the false assumption that electrons rather
than nucleons are thought to be the emitter of light (as well as other
emissions).
If we take
the popular (eV=energy) scenario to be the case and the current in the
conductor on each side of an incandescent light filament say, is the same; this
in turn predicates the absurd conclusion that because the 'energy' is used as electron
volts then the electrons must be somehow concluded to have NOT LOST 'ENERGY'
even though they emitted 'energy' as photons.
The only way
such a problem is able to be resolved under that paradigm is to conclude that
the 'energy' that was emitted as photons must have come from the voltage
component of the formula P=V.I by some sort of… virtual into physical… magical
transformation phenomenology of vacuum current from nuclei to electrons if
indeed electrons were to emit photons. This is of course what is actually
considered to be the case and that of course proposes that energy is some sort
of ethereal 'stuff' once again, and it just sort of jumps from atoms to electrons
which magically turn the 'stuff' into photons. That's not science. Where is the
phenomenology? Where does the energy that must be lost go? The saying that
quantum science is in a different universe to classical physics is just a
blatant copout!
This nonsense
however contradicts Coulomb and Ohm. If we instead consider the true case;
whereby electrons having already gained 'energy' by the FORCE in
(finally) using up the eV (force) that made them move; perturbativly (force)
changed the state of the atoms they become intimately associated with in real
time. This
force consequently
causes* the nucleons (protons) to emit
the photons, and in turn the electrons lose 'energy' by a loss of velocity and
force capability caused by depletion of charge drag (force) from the same
protons. This occurs especially where electron motion becomes constricted by 'bottle
necks' caused by (forced) nuclear proximity, and they do lose speed even though
the current speed generally remains the same in the macro world. How? Don't
worry it's just physics by ohm's law and conductivity/resistance phenomenology.
As you can see; my analysis utilizes forces to cause action and not just blind
energy 'stuff' transfer for no damn good reason!
*Understand
the cycle. Force causes motion when it travels in objecst which perturb or
strike other objects. This consequently transfers some relative motion which
thereby displaces some force to another place; and energy and work have been
seen to be done and energy has also seen to have been shifted. However the
energy can't be a moving subjectivism unless by action of a force and the
motion of particles at the very least.
If you carefully
consider the previous assertation you should understand that this phenomenon
will affect the overall charge relationships in the WHOLE conductor, so all the
electrons will slow down on average along the whole length. The current is
actually determined by the R of the filament and not the speed of electrons. If
you object; I'll show you my classical formula, care of Mr. Ohm. You show me
yours!
Note: Any idea that electrons
travel through a conductor at 'c' has been now 'proven' false.
MATHEMATICAL
PROOF OF THE ASSERTATION:
Note the definition of the eV as used herein is as
a charge.
Consider a
new case where we keep the resistance the same but we double the voltage force
to 2eV then; two electrons will be injected and the time taken to traverse the
conductor will decrease to 1/8 sec. and the power should increase to 4eW/sec.
This would seem to be predicated by the formula P=E^{2}/R. (R is 1ohm
in both this and the principal example).
When we take
this analysis back down to charge interactions at the atomic level this
reduction relates to atomic radius in the coulomb law formula for two atoms
(over which the charge relationship is occurring). This formula is F(V)=2eV/2r^{2}
where 'r' is atomic radius. 'R' is not invoked because we are only evaluating
the inverse square law relationship between the two atoms.
That
relationship will never change regardless of the thickness of the conductor
because of the averaged apportioning of vectors, and once the charge increases
to any real world value then the 2r^{2} divisor gives little to no
effective result. In this way the coulombic form validates the watts per second
form because by P=EI/t, the time delay't' in relation to the quantum units of
E and I is by t=1/eV.eJ so in this sub Joule case we have t=1/eV.eJ which
computes to an almost infinitesimal time delay until the power is down to about
1e8eW which occurs at about 0.1V where t=3.9e31sec*. So we can notice that
once the power is greater than this, the time delay doesn't really appear to
exist. However at one eV (or one eJ) it's a completely different 'quantum level'
story because in that absolutely minimal case we have t=1/1 where t=1sec.
If the
current falls to under a coulomb/sec (1A) and a voltage of 1V the time delay
begins to come into affect but it would hardly be noticeable under such
relatively high power real world applications.
*Also
the facts are; that the time delay is also inversely proportional to current
(I) and proportional to (R) so in low power data circuits you could see a
realizable time delay. This proven theory puts the brakes on useful data
propagation speeds at power values less than the minimums currently enjoyed.
Below this is the nebulous region where quantum stepped and delayed processes
cross into the real world of macro averaged behaviors.
CONCLUSION
and more mathematical proof:
By now you must be asking is this all necessary;
can't we just get down to it? Answer: If I hold out any hope of convincing you
of the veracity of my complete model then I need to fix the physics that
centuries of inurnment to dark age theories has led to by sheer laxness caused
by blind deference to relativity while ignoring the simple and intuitive
physics that we already have and improving on it in a sensible and
interpretable manner: Sorry!
An eV is
basically related to the force required to move one electron into a medium with
a known 'R' for 1.602e19J of 'energy' to be realized. The following is
determined to be the case: An eV is the charge component of power which causes
the motion of one electron (e) charge which travels at a velocity that in
product combination with an eV carries 1eJ of kinetic 'energy' in one second.
Any losses through a resistor are mainly lost by the nucleons, and this is
reflected in the electrons also losing velocity. Therefore it is the eV that
remains the constant for any give R, and it is the electron Joule that reduces
accordingly. However it is a salient contention that an eV cannot cause any
power to be exhibited without the consequential motion of an electron (e)
charge.
The eV is to
a watt as an eJ is to a watt/sec. the eV s instantaneous energy while the eJ is
the energy used by the (continuously) forced motion of one electron after one
second. This is similar to saying "I have a 230kw car" which is a
mention of the instantaneous power which says nothing about whether the car can
maintain that power output over time and at all speeds.
The
relationship from the quantum level up is as follows… The units of the terms
are in brackets. E_{q} is quantum energy, E is 'energy', Q is charge, n
is electron quantity less than a coulomb, P is power, ψ is for quantum wave
function with the value of the fine constant, e is for electron charge, and Cb
is for Coulomb…
E_{q}
=Qψ.n(e) (eJ) as quantum term units (eV/sec) (electron velocity is unknown)
E=Qe.Cb (J) ditto classical (v). (One coulomb
by one eV is one eJ.)
V.I= (W/sec) (I)
is Cb/sec. ditto classical (v)
(A)
Note: R has been ignored because it effects all of
the terms as per Ohm's law.
There are
many strange ideas floating around about the relationships between these terms.
Some will confidently state that a Coulomb is the unit of electrical charge.
Confusion begins to reign when something as simple as shortening the unit of
the watt/second to the watt or the eJ to the eV (both those changelings only
have specious and subjective existence) is allowed to go on. This readily leads
to the erroneous assumption that an amp is a coulomb and a Joule is a
coulomb/sec. The closest myth of all and which is almost the truth is
that a Joule is a watt/second; however that's simplistic and hides the real
relationship whereby a watt/second is the product of the volt and the
coulomb/sec, which is the amp; being one Cb(n)/second and the Joule is only
related to the coulombic transition over any unspecified time.
Refer to
ENERGY definition.
The above
analysis is important when it comes to evaluating an eV while analyzing
electrons traveling in a beam in a vacuum. In that case the coulombic charge is
not acting through a conductor and therefore there is no counter transference
of charge via nuclei. In that case all the 'energy' being transferred is by the
motion of electrons that can each only exhibit the same constant charge, but
that same constancy doesn't apply to spin, velocity or electron quantity
(summative electron charge) so the rate of 'energy' usage must be almost entirely
dependant on loss of electron 'v' and some by any or all of these variables.
Such analysis has been undertaken elsewhere in the thesis.
The
fundamental quantum phenomenology as presented is also the basis for the
observance of resistance as well as power as/in watts/sec.
You may be
astute and understand from this all; that the mass of an electron might be able
to be calculated if you calculate its velocity by the computed length of a one
ohm conductor of known conductivity and relate that to its cross sectional area
by r^{2} were 'r' is the atomic radius of 'copper say'. However this
will not be accurate because of the losses previously described.
However this
also relates to the quantum by PEP as noted above. This would then relate the
mass of an electron with a quantum value of bosons. This is not ME equivalence
it simply means that we have proof that the 'energy' used to move an electron
to the next shell is essentially the same as the 'energy' used to change a
quantum state and cause the emission of a photon, and that's related to the
mass of the electron by kinetic 'energy' and Plank's equations.
This could
propose that a full quantum of photons (hard xrays) would have the same mass
as an electron*. This of course doesn't prove any mass dynamics for a photon
nor causality of action, although we are able to assume that one (single)
electron volt of force achieves that quantum step in exactly one second.
Note: This would be the time taken in a lone
atom in space to gather a quantum of bosons from the quark lattice and emit
them should one electron be captured by its orbitals before it (electron) was
summarily evicted after that one second as well and then the atom would be
receptive to BBR (both photonic and trionic) of more than a photon because of
that photonic loss and the additional actionofejection force losses by BBR which
put the atom even further out of parity. Strange huh? I didn't just make that
up. That was predicated by the current assertation. Note: Parity is not the same
as universal energy balance. I think there's an experiment that proves that.
*I
don't want to get down in the weeds here and cover ground that many others
before me have analyzed in excruciating detail.
Law: This
means that a quantum step takes one second when a 'charge force' of one eV is
applied to one atom at parity full stop.
It only
appears to be shorter when a real world typical 'mess' of atoms and electrons
is being analyzed. This however opens a huge can of worms because NOW THE
quantum delay BECOMES RELATABLE TO GRAVITY by speed delay, and even to the idea
of the mass of the macro being related to the mass of the micro BUT NOT BY simplistic MATTER or (even worse) MASS
SUMMATION.
THE
MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIP PROOF OF GTHEORY:
What we have
here is an indolent mathematical proof of Gtheory itself. I.e. The 'second'
(which physics has tied to everything) is related to gravity in orbital
dynamics, and now we find by the above quantum analysis of ohms law, that the 'second'
is also being related to the QIP/PEP relationship and from there to the photon
quantum that is in turn related to the speed of light which is caused by
gravity and which in turn causes the time delayed gravity in the first place
(which by reason of universal equilibrium) once again causes the orbital
dynamics from which we initially derived the 'second', and herein we can
reasonably evaluate such circular interconnection as proof!
'That's all
very interesting you say, but we'll have to prove that by mathematics.' 'Mathematics
is just mathematics I say 'so that's not of concern to me right now because
I can see the obvious and I need to move to other considerations and take you
with me on a heightened journey of discovery into the world of the atom, which
takes this quantum behavior to a new level.