home
 
 

 
Mathis' Charge Field, Compressive Ionization & Iron Sun
© Science Admins
 
I want to glean Mathis' material (milesmathis.com) for help in developing electric Sun models etc. I'll start with one of Mathis' most recent papers, The Drude-Sommerfeld Model and the problem of heat capacity.
 
In this paper, we will look at the free electron model or Drude-Sommerfeld model of electron transfer in elements. Although I will criticize the model harshly, and ultimately correct and extend it, it is not Drude's mechanics I will take exception to. It is only Sommerfeld's "quantum mechanical" additions, and this because they are not mechanical. They are only fudges, as we will find out immediately.
Comments on the QM aspects of Mathis' paper can be appended to the article linked above, while the implications for solar theory can be discussed here.
 
'13-06-09, 21:17
 
Lloyd
St. Louis area

I discussed charge in very low density space previously, now I want to discuss the other extreme of high density solid-sate physics. I think this topic may be relevant to all of your models, BC, CC and MM: the iron Sun models and the compressive ionization model. I don't have much knowledge in this area, but I think Charles and Brant do, and maybe Michael too (certainly more than I have).

Mathis' recent paper, "The Drude-Sommerfeld Model and the problem of heat capacity" explains that the Sommerfeld additions to the original Drude model were just of a bunch of QM fantasy that made it much worse than it was. I know, Charles, you seem to understand electronics and you have criticized QM a number of times before, so maybe you're aware of this to some extent. Mathis says the D-S Model above requires the electron to have greatly variable mass, even sometimes having negative mass, calls for the electric field to be screened by the electrons themselves, and requires imaginary quasi-particles and ignoring the actual solid metal lattice, etc.

He says the basic problem is that they have long assumed that the electrons carry the charge, whereas it's photons that do that, and the heat capacity for various substances or elements varies greatly, because of the orientations and arrangements of mostly the protons within elements. I think he says that the degrees of freedom are a mistaken notion that should be replaced with the understanding of the actual arrangements of protons within elements. I'm not sure if I understood that part. But he says the heat capacity of various metals or elements varies greatly, because some arrangements of protons channel photons (which is charge) more efficiently than others do. The photons move through metal lattices etc much easier than electrons do. The electrons ride along like driftwood, remember.

I hope to learn enough to find out if the compressive ionization model will work okay and whether the iron Sun models will too. The CI model I think assumes that electrons get squeezed out of the ions, that degrees of freedom are lost and heat or something converts to electrostatic potential within the positive double layer.*9672 By Mathis' model it seems that the electrons would not get squeezed out, because they are smaller than protons, although in Kanarev's model the electrons are much larger than protons. I figured that Kanarev's model might be seeing the electron's orbital motion above and around the polar axis of the proton, which would form a torus, while Mathis is only looking at the electron itself without its orbit. So both of their models seem to be potentially very compatible.

I don't know if Mathis' model would allow for loss of degrees of freedom either. He doesn't accept the conventional view of wiggles and spins in metal lattices, but his elements have structure and particle spins etc and those would be subject to changes in a strong photon field (= charge field). I think his last paper says a strong photon field, maybe like inside the Sun, would result in particles constantly forming from photons and dissolving back into photons, so I'd like to find out at what temperature or photon intensity that might be the case. If CI is realistic, it might be useful for the iron Sun theories too.

I hope you all may like to discuss here a bit.

'13-06-09, 22:26
 
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
 
Lloyd said:
The CI model I think assumes that electrons get squeezed out of the ions, that degrees of freedom are lost and heat or something converts to electrostatic potential within the positive double layer.
That's correct. When the spacing between the atomic nuclei is too small to allow electron shells, the electrons are liberated. Then, by the Pauli Exclusion Principle, they are expelled, leaving positive ions behind. The electrons congregate in the nearest space where there is room for them. In the case of the Sun, this is to the outside, where the compression relaxes because of the diminishing gravity. The electric force, as repulsion between like charges within their own layers, and as attraction between opposite charges across the layers, removes degrees of freedom, reducing the hydrostatic pressure. Thus it could be said that hydrostatic pressure (i.e., thermal potential) has been converted to electrostatic potential.

← PREV Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite®
© 2010~2017 SCS-INC.US
NEXT →