© Lloyd

 

(Asterisks indicate more important statements, some of which need support or clarification.)

WHAT IS CHARGE?
_1 The idea of attraction is non-mechanical.
_2 This means all attractions must be only apparent--the result of complex motions.
_3 We can now re-define the charge field as a bombarding field only. It is always repulsive; never attractive.
_4 It is caused by radiation of messenger photons, which I am going to re-dub B-photons (for bombarding photons).
_5 The repulsion is caused by an old-fashioned force by contact.
_6 Of course this means that the B-photons are not virtual: they have energy, mass equivalence, and even radius.
_7 We have a small electron and a large proton (to simplify).
_8 Let us say that the radiation from the electron is relatively negligible, so that we can look only at the radiation from the proton.
_9 The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near.
*_10 But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field.
_11 Also remember that any other proton that enters the field of our first proton will also be emitting its own B-field.
_12 What about current in a wire?
*_13a Free electrons travel at high speed in a conducting wire, or any conductor,
*_13b because the B-field is moving in only one direction in that substance.
*_14 The B-field acts as a river, moving the electrons along by direct contact.
*_15 This B-field river can be created in any number of ways, either by having lots of radiating particles at one end of the wire and few or none at the other, or by directionalizing the B-field through the shape of the molecules in the substance.

HOW A BATTERY CIRCUIT WORKS
.16 A reader sent me a link to an article from 2002 by Ian Sefton of University of Sydney, who tries to explain how a circuit works.
.17 However, Sefton's explanation of the circuit is still not mechanical, as I think he would admit.
_18 Can we fill in his field model? Yes, since we now have photons to work with.
_19 In a series of papers, I have resuscitated the old spinning corpuscle of Newton, or the vortex of Maxwell, updating past centuries more fully than anyone thought possible.
_20 If you read the page at Wiki on electrical circuits, you get the impression that electrons travel through the circuit, creating the energy transfer.
_21 Sefton shows us that is false, and I have nothing to say against him. His argument in that regard is convincing.
*_22 The electrons are simply moving too slow.
_23 The flow of electrons isn't causing the lightbulb to light up, and the field doesn't explain it either.
_24 It is thought that the circuit acts as a medium through which charge can pass, but Sefton has already shown that isn't really the case.
_25 Whatever is passing is passing both through the wires and through the space between them directly, so it would appear that charge photons don't require the wires to pass from battery to bulb.
_26 The wires are providing some link, but they are not providing the path.
*_27 We should read the wires as an extension of the battery, not as a path.
_28 If we think of charge as a density difference instead of abstract potential, we can clarify the mechanics here.
*_29 The ionic content of the battery has set up not a separation of charge, but a density difference in the photon field.
_30 The photons are much denser on one side of the battery than the other.
*_31 Why._It could be any number of reasons, but a common reason in normal batteries is that chemical reactions separate large ions from small ones.
_32 In other words, if free protons are pushed to one side and free electrons to the other, the protons will be recycling far more photons.
_33 The photon density will be far higher on one side than the other, and by the rules of entropy or statistics, they will move from high density to low.

_34 Now, if we extend wires to the bulb, we haven't provided the path to the bulb that the photons must take, since the photons need no path of that kind.
*_35 What we have done is prime the field, like what happens in wireless transmission.
_36 The wires allow for an initial induction or matching of the present fields, so that photons leaving the battery can affect the photons in the bulb.
_37 You can't build a path by multiplying E times B, since B is a spin.
_38 Linear motions make paths; but spins do not make linear paths.
_39 If we define S as the statistical motion of the photons of the battery, then a better equation is S + E the path to the bulb.
*_40 From it we can see that it is not photons or electrons traveling from battery to bulb that creates the energy rise in the bulb and its lighting.
*_41 It is actually photons moving across the bulb, just as they moved across the battery.
_42 Because the photons are denser at the bottom of the battery, they will also be denser at the bottom of the bulb, in Sefton's diagram.
_43 Remember, the top wire is positive [higher photon density?] all the way to the bulb, and the bottom wire is negative [lower photon density?] all the way to the bulb.
_44 To understand why this is, imagine that the bulb is more negative than any part of the battery.
_45 That doesn't have to be the case, but we will use it as the first example (and it does help).
*_46 Statistics tells us that all the photons in the battery will be attracted to all parts of the bulb.
*_47 But since density is spatial, it matters where the terminals are located in space.
*_48 As the photons move over to the bulb, they naturally "drag" their old densities with them, simply because more photons will be coming from the denser areas.
_49 If the negative terminal is low, for instance, the density will remain lower a few feet away.
_50 Unless the circuit is gigantic, we wouldn't expect the density differences to dissipate much.
_51 Distances don't mean much to photons, remember, since they are moving so fast.
_52 But if you check the latest theories, S is more strictly defined as the change of energy density .
*_53 You should find it interesting that current theory uses density here, since I am defining the entire circuit, at the fundamental level, as an outcome of photon density variation.
_54 If you say you have a field, that implies a field of some things.
_55 To remain mechanical, the field must contain something, either atoms or molecules or electrons or asteriods.
_56 Asking what is in the field is a mechanical question, and mechanics is physics, not metaphysics.
_57 In addition, we can't have equal energy entering the wires from all directions.
_58 That would create zero potential in the wire, wouldn't it.
_59 There is no impulse to motion in the field between two numbers that are the same.
_60 Therefore, saying that energy follows lines of equal potential is like saying that water flows up. _It is a contradiction.
_61 But the current theory does not tell us what is setting up any of these fields of potentials, or why a charged particle placed at any point in the triple field moves one way instead of another.
_62 He takes E as given, when it is what we are trying to explain. _That is called begging the question.
_63 IF E is moving along the wire, WHY is it doing so.
_64 In my theory, there is no S, so I don't have to explain it.
_65 There is only E, and E is the linear motion of the photons.
_66 In my theory, neither S nor E are moving through the wire.
*_67 As we will see below, some photons are initially moving in the wire to prime the field, but this movement isn't either S or E.
_68 It is a precursor to E, just as priming the field is a precursor to transmission in wireless.
*_69 And yes, electrons may be caused to drift by collisions with these passing photons, but, as Sefton just proved, E cannot be this movement of the electrons, since it is too slow.
*_70 The drift of electrons is just a side effect.
_71 The drift of electrons doesn't light the bulb, so it isn't what we are concerned with.
_72 If we had a true circuit, then both wires would be hot.
_73 But even in Sefton's field model, nothing is completing the circuit.
*_74 If this is the case, we must explain why we even need to complete the loop with the second wire.
_75 We know that we do, since if we don't, the bulb doesn't light up. _Why.
*_76 A related question is why we need the wires at all.
_77 My photon densities should be moving over there regardless, since photons are not contained.
_78 Therefore, if we are asking why we need the wires here, it may help to look at how wireless transmission works, to see why it isn't working here.
*_79 In a nutshell, in wireless transmission source and receiver have to be coupled, which means the field in the receiver has to be primed to match the source.
_80 This priming is done via the E/M field between the source and receiver.
_81 Since the Earth's atmosphere is already an E/M field, it can easily be used for this purpose, as Tesla discovered.
*_82 The problem is, in normal conditions, the field is not coherent in any way. _It is scrambled, relative to source and receiver. _Charge photons are rushing around in every direction.
*_83 But by sending out a pre-signal, as it were, a path is created for the photons. _A coherence in the field is created.
*_84 When this field reaches the receiver, the E/M field surrounding the atoms there is also made coherent.
*_85 This coherence can be a coherence of frequency or it can be a coherence of spin (magnetism), or both.
_86 This means that the charge emitted by particles in the receiver will be as like as possible in type to the charge emitted by the source.
_87 Like charge couples most easily. _Charge that is directionalized, frequency matched, and spin matched will maximize the coupling.
_88 With this in mind, we see that the reason there is no wireless transmission between a battery and a bulb is that there is no pre-signal. _The field hasn't been primed.
*_89 The photons at the source don't match the photons at the receiver in any way, so there isn't any appreciable coupling.
*_90 And this means that the wires in a wire circuit aren't really carrying charge, they are simply priming the field. _The wires supply the pre-signal.
_91 They mirror the function of the conductor in wireless.
_92 Some amount of photons pass through the wires, and they cohere the E/M field inside the bulb.
_93 This causes a sort of mutual induction, although most of the effect is going from battery to bulb (since most the photons are being recycled in the battery).
_94 And since the heaviest photon traffic is from battery to bulb, this traffic will cause the electrons in the wire to move toward the bulb, by direct bombardment.
_95 This is what has fooled everyone. _They see that electron movement toward the bulb and mistake it for the mechanism. _It isn't the mechanism, it is just a by-product.
*_96 But why must we have two wires then. _Why doesn't one wire work to prime the field. _Because one wire doesn't allow for induction.
*_97 Induction is caused by photon modulation of some sort, and you can't have this modulation without some appreciable width of influence.
*_98 If you had a really wide wire and a perfectly directionalized connection, you could create the induction with one wire, since in that case you would be mirroring the wireless set-up.
_99 In wireless, the atmosphere works like a really wide single wire with a pre-existing field.
_100 But a normal copper wire is too small in cross section to allow the photons to arrive at the source with the proper information.
_101 You can send information through a single wire, but you can't prime the E/M field through a small single wire (under normal circumstances).

_102 To simplify the mechanism for this paper, think of the photons arriving at the bulb and speeding out of the wire.
*_103 Following Huygens principle, we can imagine the photons fanning out, as from a point source.
*_104 That fanning out ruins the ability of the photons to cohere the field inside the bulb.
_105 The local field can't read what the new photons are trying to tell them, since the fanning out is changing the information every moment.
*_106 If the field is supposed to be modulated by frequency for instance, that fanning out is changing the frequency.
_107 Photons coming out near the edges of the wire—the ones fanning the most— will be shifted relative to the local field.
_108 The field inside the bulb doesn't know what to make of the new photons.
_109 Very little of the field inside the bulb will be modulated.
*_110 Induction requires a resonance, and a fan can't create this resonance.
*_111 But if we allow even two point sources to enter the bulb simultaneously, with some separation, the local field can read the information in the new photons.
*_112 How. _Because the two new fans will cross. _One new influence won't create a pattern, two will.
*_113 Remember that waves are basically very simple fixed patterns. _It is these waves we are modulating in some fashion to create the induction.
_114 Well, a fan doesn't create a new pattern or wave that will stand.
_115 A Huygens fan just looks like a stirring to the local field.
_116 If anything, it will decohere or mix the field inside the bulb, not modulate it.
_117 But two such fans create crossing points that make a consistent pattern.
_118 This pattern can be read as a wave by the local field, and the local field can therefore be influenced by it in a positive manner.
*_119 The field in the bulb can therefore be made like the field in the battery, and we have induction.
_120 I have said that the wires simply provide the induction.
*_121 But if that is so, then why does the induction cease when the wires are cut.
_122 According to my theory, shouldn't we have wireless transmission after the initial priming, even with a battery. _No, of course not.
*_123 In real wireless, do we continue to have transmission when the conductor is turned off. _No.
*_124 The reason for this is that the ambient field rushes back in in both cases, rescrambling the paths.
_125 The coherence has to be maintained or it will immediately be lost.
_126 We can imagine E/M fields that might maintain this coherence even after the wires were cut or the conductor turned off, but the Earth's atmosphere is not such a field.
_127 In addition, it might seem that by my theory, both wires would be hot.
_128 Since photons are moving from battery to bulb in both wires, why don't we see electrons moving the same in both wires.
_129 Because, again, the two poles aren't the same, as a matter of photon density. _We have a much larger density at one pole.
_130 That is what created the initial energy field in the battery.
_131 The photons moving to the bulb from that pole will be much denser in the wire, and will make it much hotter.
*_132 This means that the neutral wire is not really neutral, it is just relatively neutral.
_133 It is a lot "cooler" than the other wire, because very few photons need to move through it to create the induction.
_134 Therefore, we would expect some motion of electrons toward the bulb, but not much.
_135 The neutral or return wire in a battery is not a ground, so nothing is returning and nothing is neutral.
_136 If electricity was returning to the battery, the wire would be hot in the other direction, right.
_137 But under normal circumstances, we would actually expect the electrons to be moving very slowly toward the bulb, which means we have neither a circuit nor a return nor a ground.
*_138 S is the statistical linear motion of the photons, before we prime the field. _It is the linear motion before the induction and before the "circuit" is created.
*_139 After the mutual induction takes place, and the fields are cohered, then E will be created.
*_140 5) Anytime you have information that moves at the speed of light, you should assume you have photons involved, not electrons.
_141 6) Potential differences in this problem are actually variations in photon densities. _Rather than think of potential, we should think of wind. _But here, we let our wind vary in density, not speed.
*_142 7) Like everything else, electrical induction is a mechanical process. _It is photons colliding with other photons, and informing them via a resonance; just as one river entering a larger river will be informed by that river (as a matter of speed, say).
*_143 8) The wires in a simple circuit perform precisely the same field priming that a conductor does in wireless. _That is, the wires produce the initial induction, and after that, the field of the battery can pass to the receiver with or without the wires.
*_144 And finally, we have learned that different substances actually create different charge. _We can deduce this just from the fact that we need induction. _If all elementary particles and atoms and molecules were emitting the same charge photons, then we wouldn't need induction.
_145 The photons in the battery would already match the photons in the bulb, and we would have wireless connections between everything, without wires and without conductors.
_146 We wouldn't need towers creating paths; everything would be resonating with everything else, and it would be a mess, frankly.
_147 So we have discovered that different substances emit different photons.
*_148 The size and shape of the emitters determine the characteristics of the charge. _This means that we might create induction, or maximize it, by making our receivers out of the same material as our emitters.
_149 In some cases that might be impossible. _For instance, if our source of emission is free protons, it would be hard to make a lightbulb out of free protons. _Even hydrogen wouldn't mimic free protons, since the shape would be different.
_150 But it might be possible to make a battery and a bulb out the same materials, or out of materials that created charge of the same profile. _Just an idea.
_151 It might also facilitate transmission to have the receiver directly above the source, so that the charge field of the Earth will help rather than interfere. _The difference might be small, but it might also be measurable.