"It is as if entire reaction force on the universe ... acted back on the freely spinning mass system ..."

Starting from mutual retarded gravitational interaction inside an orbiting system of discrete mass elements Keith further included retarded interaction of orbiting mass elements with stationary masses outside the orbiting system and eventually extrapolated to remote external masses of the universe. The spinning ball experiment devised and quantitatively specified by Keith, therefore, should be regarded as a direct experimental proof of so called Mach's Principle, i.e. identification of inertial forces as due to interaction with remote background masses of the universe.

In principle yes. The rotation interacts with local space to a small extent sometimes described as frame dragging. So in fact every spinning object gradually slows down. For the gyroscope additional deceleration can occur when the gimbals are restricted.

"frame dragging"

Experiments have been devised aiming at investigation of Lense-Thirring type frame dragging by flying gyro probes as well as by observation of orbiting satellites in the vicinity of slowly rotating celestial objects. On the other hand, the experiment devised by James C. Keith aims at detecting reactive drag exerted on a small sized high-speed rotor that itself represents the source of gyrotation. It should be a challenging task to analyze and assess both, the Lense-Thirring and Keith effects under consideration of experimental results that have already been achieved, see references below. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense%E2%80%93Thirring_precession

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe

In traditional physics, massive bodies are considered in motion as if they had no internal structure, leading to experimental results that are difficult to relate with known laws.

When considering that all macroscopic bodies are made of massive elementary charged particles, it can then be understood that when a macroscopic body rotates, what really is happening is that all of these massive charged elementary particles of which it is made are in reality translating on closed orbits.

The 2nd principle of thermodynamics then mandates that any change in state of motion involves an expenditure of energy, which can easily be identified with a possible cause of the slowing down, since the inner elementary particles are constantly changing direction on those closed orbits.

Seems to me that this could make sense from the electromagnetic perspective.

Dear Fremerey,

could you please briefly explain the resolution of Keith's effect with the incompatibility due to observation of celestial/extraterrestrial objects? 

also, how would the effect figure in the coalescence of two spinning black holes, as per LIGO?   

Dear Asher Klatchko,

If I understand your first question correctly, you would expect much higher slowing down rates according to Keith's predictions than observed of celestial objects such as, e.g., neutron stars. Rotational drag as theoretically demonstrated by Keith should in fact be expected solely on systems consisting of discrete orbiting mass elements, and is expected to diminish as number of mass elements increases. You may find my respective explanation in appended conference abstract.

As to your second question I don't think that coalescing black holes are still to be looked at as discrete mass elements.

„In traditional physics, massive bodies are considered in motion as if they had no internal structure“

Dear André,

thank you for your valuable contribution which made me think a little about what you say. Keith's predictions explicitly make sense only with systems made up of discrete massive particles. It was held against Keith that neutron stars according to his predictions would slow down at a rate much higher than observed. This, in fact, lead me to the idea that gravitational interaction, respectively „force exchange“, as suggested by Keith might be looked at as possibly being trapped respectively shielded by massive particles. This, of course, would further imply the possible existence of exchange particles.

On the other hand, when electric charges come into play as according to your suggestion, I don't know how to separate associated effects from pure gravitational effects. However, I think that Keith has considered this case by taking into account „cohesive forces“ that should be clearly attributed to electric rather than gravitational forces, see reference below.

I contend that there is a structured vacuum state of electrons and positrons responsible for gravitation and for inertial effects whence every particle (with mass) sets up accompanying waves by its motion. (Epola mode of (M Simhony, (1973).

These relate by their phase waves to de Broglie waves of matter.

Ideally a spinning ball without linear velocity should establish an energy-conserving closed wave for each of its atomic nuclei (as for atomic electrons). However we must acknowledge the absolute motion of Earth and indeed of the Solar system. Smoot determined the peculiar velocity od the solar system at 350-400 km per sec in the general direction of constellation of Leo. . 

Dear Johan,

I think then that Keith was also aware that the total mass of any macroscopic body simply is the total sum of the masses of the elementary particles that they are made of.

I do not know however to what degree he could have been aware of the "electric charge" aspect of these elementary particles and of the resulting contribution to the total mass by the energy adiabatically induced by the Coulomb force in these charged particles as a function of the inverse square of the distance separating them, since charged particles mandate the existence of the inverse square acting Coulomb force.

Since he was talking about "cohesive forces", I also suspect that he was effectively considering the Coulomb force at play. More on the issue of the Coulomb force vs gravitational force further down.

I have not yet read his paper, but I will shortly.

Exchange of virtual photons is one way to address the issue, but also the infinitesimally progressive induction with diminishing distance by the Coulomb force. Both avenues end up giving the same amounts of adiabatic kinetic energy induction, although this becomes more obvious from the infinitesimally progressive approach.

If interested, I had a paper analyzing this specific issue published last year. First paper below.

As for gravitation, I also gave thought to the issue.

I did some calculation regarding relative distances between the proton and the electron least action orbital in the hydrogen atom and found that if the proton was metaphorically expanded to become as large as the sun, then the electron would be located as far as Neptune, which gives us a clue at the relatively "astronomical distances" separating these massive elementary particles within atoms.

I then had a look at the various force equations and ended up finding that they all end up being alter egos of the fundamental acceleration force F=ma, even the gravitational equation, which leads to observe that they all obey the inverse square induction law with distance, since they all also are de facto the same as the Coulomb equation.

The second paper details this demonstration.

Hopefully, some of this will make sense to you.

https://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

Article Unifying All Classical Force Equations

Hi Johan,

I just remembered an experimentally confirmed case of rotation slowing down in deep space that might be of interest to you.

It pertains to the rotation slowing down of both Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts. For years, the were observed as slowing down at the stable rate of 0.0076 RPM per year. See paper below, page 23

Note that there is a big difference between a body having been put in rotation from an initial impulse such as these spacecrafts, where a constant level of kinetic energy is not maintained by a force, and a naturally rotating body such as the neutron star you mention, where by structure, whatever energy would be expended by the particles captive on their closed orbits, this energy is by definition constantly replenished by the permanently acting Coulomb force that maintains them in these least action equilibrium states, since energy is induced only as a function of the stabilized axial distances within the atoms. This would mean that the neutron star rotation speed should not slow down over time since it can be presumed to be the outcome of a local equilibrium state. That's my view anyway.

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064

"I do not know however to what degree he could have been aware of the "electric charge" aspect of these elementary particles ..."

Dear André,

Keith devotes a special chapter III.B of his paper to "Self reaction of a single particle forced to rotate in a circle" dealing with electric charge effects. Maybe you will find something relevant to your question there. Unfortunately, due to my poor background in theoretical physics I feel unabble to adequately comment on your above suggestions and related first reference. On the other hand, your ideas developed towards "Unifying All Classical Force Equations" really appear attractive to me.

"rotation slowing down of both Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts"

I feel this kind of observation won't help that much in assessing data achieved with the experimental setup devised by Keith. This is because the latter unveal a unique feature supporting the predictions by Keith, namely the very special dependence of observed drag on the rotor spin frequency, see Figure 2b of annexed paper. This presumably cannot be derived from spacecraft observation.

Thanks for commenting on probable self sustaining effects to be considered in view of neutron star rotation.

Dear Johan,

I will read Keith's paper and your paper today.

Glad you find interest in the paper about unifying the force equations.

I must say that at first, I thought this could not make sense and re-worked the derivations a number of times before finally concluding that only this made sense. It is the identity between other force equations with the energy inducing Coulomb equation that eventually led me to the conclusions drawn in the paper on adiabatic processes.

I did not know about Keith's work before. Thank you for your contribution.

Andre might be interested in the attached paper concerning the relationship of a hydrogen atom's proton to its electron.

It is noteworthy also that the during the period of the 10.2eV Lyman alpha radiant wave emitted as the 2S electron falls to the 13.6eV 1S ground state of H atom, the proton moves across the difference between the 2S and 1S radii at the nominal 392 kms-1 peculiar velocity of the solar system calculated above and within the limits determined experimentally by G. Smoot in 1978-80.

RGG

Dear Guy,

I will read your paper with great interest. All the more so since equation (10) in the following paper, which shows that the ratio of the relativistic velocity at the Bohr radius (mean hydrogen ground state orbital) with respect to the speed of light is exactly equal to the exact inverse of the fine structure constant;1/137.0359998.

I always suspected that there was a relation between the least action resonance states in atoms and the regularities that can be found at the astronomic level.

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue3/E0703021025.pdf

Dear Andre,

Thank you for the paper. Your reference in the paper to magnetisation caused by spinning a suspended iron rod/wire reminded me of Faraday's homopolar generator that worked whether the disc was spun through the gap of a horse-shoe magnet or if a magnet was mounted on the disc to rotate with it.    

The evidence for an attached near-field around a radio transmitter antenna is further evidence of an active vacuum. (In my opinion),

See more linkages to astronomical circumstances with experimental evidence for a structured vacuum state in this poster that I presented recently:   www.epola.co.uk/poster2017.pdf  - and more from its references and others listed on the website's  "Developments" page. (Experiments continue with colleagues at Lincoln Astronomical Society, UK).

[See also, on ResearchGate,  the work of your countryman Lois Rancourt ]

Best, Guy.

"However we must acknowledge the absolute motion of Earth and indeed of the Solar system."

Dear Guy,

In Keith's experiment, I think that predominant effects should be expected from extremely high mass acceleration of about 3x107 times gravity at 600 m/s of rotor rim velocity, while effects due to quasi linear motion as you mention above rather appear negligible.

Thanks Guy for the references.

I will also have a look at Louis' work

Johan, Sorry to be so long replying. I have read your paper concerning Keith gravitational radiation.  I assume this expects loss of mass-energy by radiation rather than drag.  I was unable to access the original papers (refs 8,9). I did see that others refuted your conclusions. (eg Rosenblum). I do not ascribe to radiative gravitation but to 'dilution' of the binding energy of the hosting vacuum structure, causing 'pressure difference' as a push force.  J/m3 = n/m2 = Pa, pascal unit of pressure. Between bodies overlapping weakened structure is further weakened in comparison with outermost regions causing bodies to 'gravitate' toward each other.

Something that might be if interest is this paper by 'Jerry' Hynecek:  (see link).

Another paper that comes was one referring to altered decay rate when centrifuging an active source. Higher in one rotation tan th other - I suspect adding or subtracting to Earth's rotation wrt to peculiar velocity. (I'll try to find that paper in my archives).

https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/171-16-pdf-jaroslav-hynecek-resolution-of-the-ehrenfest-paradox-sagnac-effect-and-the-michelson-morley-experiment.html

"I was unable to access the original papers (refs 8,9). I did see that others refuted your conclusions. (eg Rosenblum)."

Dear Guy,

thanks for your comment. You'll find ref.8 via annexed first link, while ref.9 is directly accessible, see first PDF below. Objections by Rosenblum et al. have apparently been solved as according to second PDF below.

I'll try to follow your further suggestions as far as I'm able to do so as somebody not that much familiar with various competing background theories in the field.

As an experimental physicist I formerly had the idea that experimental results should not only be evaluated by theoretical physicists, even worse, being disapproved by cosmologists, such as Rosenblum and colleagues, merely on grounds of their still restricted and sometimes rather speculative knowledge of celestial objects. But, oddly enough, our experimental data and procedures have never been criticized or at least been commented from an experimental point of view, nor has anybody suggested alternative causes for our data that, in fact, obviously fit to Keith's predictions on the effect of gravitational force retardation, see bottom link for details.  

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sapm1963421248/abstract

Research A second look at experimental data suggesting gravity speed ...

Dear Johan,

I have been reading the Keith paper also, and finally put in perspective the initial remark you quoted in your initial question:

"It is as if entire reaction force on the universe, a universe which cannot itself react to forces and torques inertially, acted back on the freely spinning mass system causing a real slowing down.",  on page 11

I also observed that Keith was keenly aware of the (electrical) interactions between the individual atoms within the masses, which obviously connect with my initial comment regarding the fact that the individual electrically charged particles in a rotating body set in motion by an initial impulse are themselves "objectively translating" on closed orbits (thus expending energy as "work") within the "apparently rotating" macroscopic body while mutually captive in a local electromagnetic equilibrium state that maintains the cohesion of this macroscopic body.

Correlating it with the mention I made that for macroscopic bodies naturally stabilized in rotating motion, the energy expended by the translating charged particles due to their constant change in direction is constantly replenished by the permanently acting inducing force that contributes to the equilibrium.

I then read your further remarks again on this issue: "On the other hand, when electric charges come into play as according to your suggestion, I don't know how to separate associated effects from pure gravitational effects"

I then put this in perspective with this other remark you made about the neutron star: "It was held against Keith that neutron stars according to his predictions would slow down at a rate much higher than observed."

With respect to this last remark, I have a question of my own:

Is it known whether this neutron star is on the inbound leg of its elliptic galactic orbit toward its perigalacticon or on its outbound leg towards its apogalacticon?

Because, if it is on its inbound leg, then the observed rate of slowing down may be consistent with the conclusions of an analysis I carried out a few years back that may also bring some leads to your interrogation as to what could relate (not separate) electric interactions and gravitational effects.

For the relation between observed neutron stars slowing down and the possible inbound leg of galactic orbit of the observed neutron stars, see Sections XV. Earth's rotation rate progressive slowing down, XVI. Moon orbit progressive widening, and XVII. Cyclic Solar system galactic orbit variation.

As for the relation between electric interaction and gravitation that underlies this analysis, it is grounded on an apparent mathematical proof that all classical force equations resolve to F=ma, meaning that even the famed gravitational equation is identical to the Coulomb equation. Exposed in the second paper.

Hope some of this makes sense to you.

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol8-issue1/B08011033.pdf

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/2256

Johan, Thank you for links.

A thought occurred that even if momentum truly can be conserved, a rapidly (even minimally- relativistically) rotating body will be subject to Lorentz contraction and thus become dynamically misshapen. Thus it cannot have constant momentum to conserve when (rim) velocity is perturbed.

Guy

Dear André,

your way of approaching basic physical issues as demonstrated in your paper „Inside Planets and Star Masses“ appears quite exciting to me. A couple of years ago I was quite happy already by getting the proton diameter from very basic assumptions leading me straight into a „triple-top“ model of the proton and reasonable value of its magnetic moment, see appended note (unpublished, in German).

Impressive, in particular, are the consequences that you are drawing from a few basic assumptions, reaching from elementary to cosmological scales, and to unification of force equations. Unfortunately, I don't have any idea yet how to link your very conclusive set of explanations to various observational phenomena with the predictions of Keith on gravitational force retardation and related experimental findings.

Dear Johan,

I have not studied in sufficient detail Keith's math and do not know enough about his foundations to clearly relate his work to my conclusions either, since I would have to patiently convert his retardation based math to my own "permanently-present-force vs induced-kinetic-energy-limit-velocity-of-light" based math to clearly relate (a conversion at the limit of my abilities), although I understand that both Keith and I are looking at the same phenomenon from different angles.

What allowed the chain of reasoning of the "Inside Planets and Stars Masses" is the prior analysis of the axial induction of adiabatic kinetic energy in atomic and nuclear structures  from a paper previously mentioned. Note in this regard, that the current definitions of momentum, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian are unable to represent this adiabatic energy when the charged particles are translationally immobilized in atomic stuctures, since their "orbital velocity" then falls to zero, being maintained in axial resonance states by local electromagnetic equilibrium states, their kinetic energy vectorially being oriented axially towards the center by structure.

I must say that I have trouble reading your handwriting, and don't see the actual reference [1] mentioned at the beginning of your unpublished note of which I access only the first page.

Would you perchance have a typewritten version available? I would appreciate, since any info on the magnetic moment of the proton from an experimentalist's perspective would be of great interest to me.

"Would you perchance have a typewritten version available?"

Dear André,

please find attached English translation just prepared for better reading. Interesting to note in view of your proposals and consequences is that elementary gyro radius according to my model increases on decreasing mass.

"rotating body will be subject to Lorentz contraction and thus become dynamically misshapen."

Dear Guy,

do you have any idea on the order of magnitude we would have to expect?

Edit: You should know that, in fact, we have accounted for extra energy stored in elastic, i.e. reversible deformation at high rotational speeds, see annexed paper.

Dear Johan,

How interesting that you had so much interest into the inner magnetic structure of the proton in the 1990's.

What a coincidence that toward the end of the 1990's, I also was trying to tackle the same issue. And also concluded that 3 half spin magnetic component needed to be involved (in my model, 3 major half-spin components - the 3 carrier-photons of the 3 quarks amounting to 98% of the total mass, and the 3 minor half-spin components - the 3 quarks themselves, amounting to only 2% of the mass, with negligible magnetic impact). See further down.

I observed that few people seem interested in the magnetic aspect of elementary particles, and particularly of nucleons.

You mention "that elementary gyro radius according to my model increases on decreasing mass."

Yes this absolutely matches with my conclusions. From the conclusions I drew, this is related to the manner in which the effective mass of elementary particles varies with axial distances within atoms, since from what I understood, the effective mass of elementary particles can only be made up of its invariant rest mass, plus a mass increment made up of half the adiabatic kinetic energy induced by the Coulomb force at the distance where a particle is electromagnetically stabilized in an atomic structure (also within nucleons).

These adiabatic energy levels vary according to the electrostatic energy induction constant (to my knowledge not currently used in electrodynamics)

K= 1.220852596E-38 j× m2

Suffices to divide this constant by the square of the radial distance to the center of the hydrogen atomic structure to obtain the adiabatic amount of kinetic energy induced in a massive particle for this distance. Also valid inside nucleons, such as the proton. It is with this constant that I explored nucleons.

I observed from your paper "Permanentmagnetische Lager" that you are very familiar with circular magnets. (Interesting to learn that magnetic bearings are used in large rotating equipment. The only knowledge I had before of applied magnetic suspension of rotating devices was that it was used in computer hard disk drives). So maybe the paper below will be of interest to you.

I carried out an experiment about 1998 with circular magnets magnetized parallel to thickness (loud-speaker magnets). The reason was that since both north and south poles of such magnets can be considered to geometrically coincide at the geometric enter of the central hole in these magnets, they were appropriate to represent the magnetic configuration of elementary charged electromagnetic particles, since their point-like behavior mandates by structure that both poles of their magnetic field will also geometrically coincide.

The outcome was that it is possible with this experiment to prove that the poles of the magnetic fields of such magnets (and by similarity of point-like behaving elementary particles) are present only one at a time, meaning that their magnetic field oscillates from one orientation to the other at the frequency of the energy that sustains the magnetic field.

This is obtained by comparing the equation obtained from the data obtained with the experiment with the traditional equation for bar magnets interaction (Conclusion drawn in Sections E and F).

But what I think you might be interested in is the attempt similar to yours that I tried from my other conclusions in Section XII- Proton Composite Magnetic Moment. My results are just estimates of course.

This was as far as I could go, and the complexity prevented me from cleanly hooking up with the measured proton magnetic moment. I simply got lost in the calculation involving the magnetic drift related to the very tight gyro radius.

Work yet to be done.

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue5/H0705050066.pdf

"magnetic interaction between nuclei and electronic escort can only be repulsive"

Dear André,

quite an attractive idea I just grasped from abstract of your referenced paper. Before trying to enter more deeply into that matter I'd like to tell you that, in fact, magnetic effects have not been my primary interest at that time, but rather the idea of two complementary states of energy, i.e. a propagating (radiation) and a localized one (mass). I supposed the latter to result from „condensation“ of propagating energy into a rotating status of existence. I was much exited to arrive at what W. Finkelnburg described as „the shortest length“ and what at the same time corresponds to both, the Compton wavelength and associated radius of the proton. The proton magnetic moment turned out as three times the nuclear magneton just by assuming associated gyro mass to be one third of the proton mass. Would the latter assumption fit to your respective ideas?

Dear Johan,

I just compared the equations of your unpublished triple-gyro model with my own development and found that your 3 times approximation is very close to the proton g factor which is set at 2.792775597 (see Section N in my paper).

This is quite exciting to me that you would have associated the effective proton spin to only one of the three 1/2 spin components, each tied to 1/3 of the mass, because in such a three magnetic sub-components half spins structure, two of the sub-components associate by structure in anti-parallel relation, leaving only one magnetic sub-component to be effectively expressed.

So associating this expressed sub-component to a corresponding part of the mass makes it entirely logical that the total mass of the structure would be obtained, then accounting for the two "magnetically-invisible-by-structure" massive sub-components, then matching the proton Compton wavelength and thus the associated proton radius.

So yes, this makes sense to me.

Regarding your quote from my abstract "magnetic interaction between nuclei and electronic escort can only be repulsive".

Note that I would currently reformulate it more precisely as "magnetic interaction between nuclei and electronic escort can only become predominantly repulsive when the electron gets closer to the proton than the mean ground state orbital distance (corresponding to the Bohr radius when considering the hydrogen atom)".

Grounded on the discovery that the magnetic field of point-like behaving elementary particles oscillates between both half spin orientations at the frequency of its energy (Sections E and F), this means that due to the highly different magnetic oscillation rates between the electron and the much more energetic proton sub-components, coupled with the fact that magnetic interaction between such fields obey the inverse cube rule, calculation show that equilibrium point "d" of figure 1 corresponds to the Bohr radius, as mechanically explained in Section I and Figure 3, because this causes the resultant inverse cube repulsive interaction to exceed the inverse cube attractive interaction when the electron comes closer than the mean distance, causing the electron to be repelled even with the inverse square electric attraction being constantly applied.

Please take note of the Erratum note mentioned here regarding the first four paragraphs of Section I:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2264

Dear Johan,

"rather the idea of two complementary states of energy, i.e. a propagating (radiation) and a localized one (mass). I supposed the latter to result from „condensation“ of propagating energy into a rotating status of existence."

So we both agree that electromagnetic energy and the energy making up the rest mass of massive elementary particles is the same substance.

In the 3-spaces model, the "condensation" you refer to corresponds to a mechanically explainable change in orientation process in the 3-spaces complex of the electromagnetic energy quantum involved during separation of an electron-positron pair from a 1.022+ MeV electromagnetic photon being destabilized as is understood to occur since the 1930's (Blackett and Oc­chialini ).

"magnetic interaction between nuclei and electronic escort can only be repulsive"

Dear André,

back to your above statement in unrevised form I think we should be aware that any kind of stable distance between force linked particles requires a pair of unlike force-vs-distance characteristics as also well known, e.g., from the "6-12" Lennard-Jones potential. As I'm sort of familiar with the inverse cube characteristic of magnetic dipole field in radial directions it appears rather obvious to me that equilibrium distance may as well be established by superposition of attractive 1/r2 and repulsive 1/r4 forces. In case of magnetic dipoles the latter apparently is 1/r4, indeed. Just found an article on that matter including proposals for experimental verification, see reference below.

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~moloney/Ph425/ejp_projects_0708/B_dipole_dipole-dipole_interaction_ejp7_3_003.pdf

Dear Johan,

I am aware of what you mention. However, these conclusions were drawn without taking into account that point-like behaving particles' magnetic fields can only oscillate between magnetic increasing presence and magnetic decresing presence at the particle's frequency, as demonstrated by the experiment, so that these conclusions can't apply to this case.

When two electrons are synchronously in their increasing and decreasing magnetic presence phases, they are in parallel spin alignement and magnetically repel each other.

When one electron is in its increasing magnetic presence phase while the other is synchronously in its magnetic decreasing presence phase, they are in anti-parallel spin alignment and they can join in covalent bounding of two atoms or pair filling of an orbital.

The article you refer to effectively deals with magnetic dipoles, but the case I describe does not involve magnetic dipoles, but magnetic monopoles by structure.

Since the proton 3 major sub-componets' cycling magnetic increasing presence and magnetic decreasing presence oscillate about 600 times during the corresponding cycle of the electron, each time the nucleon sub-components decreasing magnetic presence starts (attracting anti-parallel spin alignment with respect to the magnetic presence of the electron), the electron is further away than at the beginning of the previous nucleon sub-component incresing presence (repelling parallel spin with respect to the magnetic presence of the electron), which due to the inverse cube law, makes it impossible for the electron to be brought back as close as it was at the beginning of this previous parallel alignment cycle.

And this a little more than 600 times for each complete magnetic presence cycle of the electron.

From my understanding, this can only result in the electron stabilizing in an axial resonance state about the mean orbital distance until it is energized  away by some incoming photon or convection energy.

I tried to explain this as well as I could in Section i. Maybe not as clearly as could be.

Dear Johan,

I see that we drifted way off subject from you initial question, but I thought you might nevertheless be interested in this 2014 experiment by Kotler et al, directly measuring the magnetic interaction between two electrons from two separate atoms being forced to rigidly interact in parallel spin alignment, directly confirming the inverse cube interaction between them.

This was done 1 year after I published my results assuming this relation only by similarity by structure from my experiment carried out in the 1990's.

I must say that I saw this, maybe wrongly so, as sort of a direct confirmation of my assumption.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

„I see that we drifted way off subject from your initial question, ...“

Dear André,

you are right, of course, but we should be aware that the initial question lead us straight into the consequent question of how to discern between gravitational and electromagnetic effects in case of an electromagnetically bound rotating system of mass elements. So I think it still makes sense to go on with analysis of electromagnetic effects that might be responsible for the drag we have observed in our experiments as an alternative to what Keith predicts as due to gravitational force retardation.

Let me continue with your following statement:

„I carried out an experiment about 1998 with circular magnets magnetized parallel to thickness (loud-speaker magnets) ... both north and south poles of such magnets can be considered to geometrically coincide at the geometric center of the central hole in these magnets, …“

My understanding of speaker type magnets is, as illustrated, e.g., in Bild 2 (Figure 2) of my paper „Permanentmagnetische Lager“ (see attached page), that their fields are induced by counterrotating current loops located at their inner and outer cylindrical surfaces. At a given point of their circumference they in fact behave like simple bar magnets, as illustrated by sectional views in the same figure, with opposite magnetic poles located at their well spaced axial end faces. From this point of view I get into trouble when trying to follow your ideas and consquences based on the existence of virtually zero-extension elementary magnets.

Dear Johan,

I printed your Permanentmagnetische Lager paper yesterday to read at leasure as time allows. Very interesting material, I am currently at page 11.

I examined the description of your circular magnets as illustrated in Bild 2. I am not certain that they are magnetized in the same manner as loudspeaker circular magnets such as those I used.

The dimensions of the loud speaker magnets I used are outer diameter 7.1 cm; Inner diameter 3.1 cm; thickness 0.84 cm, with magnetic field oriented perpendicularly to the flat surfaces. This is what causes both poles of the global field to geometrically coincide at the geometric center of the central hole In those magnets, the poles are not located on the faces of the magnet as they seem to be in your magnets.

This is mandated so that the loudspeaker coil can travel axially in the central hole always tending to remain perfectly centered. All circular loud speaker magnets have to be magnetized this way.

From the information I have gathered, macroscopic magnetic fields are the result of the addition of the individual magnetic field of unpaired electrons that local electromagnetic equilibrium states forces to remain in mutual parallel alignment in ferromagnetic material. So we know that the smallest "magnetic building block" is the magnetic field of the electron. I did not keep trace of all souces, but one source I often refere people to is the CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics.

I think this was directly confirmed by the Kotler et al. experiment, it seems to me.

This does not mean in my view that the electron has virtual zero-extension. We don't know in fact what the electron is.

We know however from the Kotler et al experiment that they effectively behave like elementary magnets when forced to interact in parallel spin alignment. So logic mandates that they will also behave likewise when in anti-parallel spin alignment.

I drew my conclusion that their field alternates between "north" and "south" instead of having both poles being permanently present (in this point-like configuration) due to the fact that the force that can be calculated from this geometry (from the data gathered) is half the force that can be had for bar magnets, in which both north and south poles are physically separated at each end of the bar and remain permanently present at all times.

Otherwise how could the half force of the loud speaker magnets be explained ? because if we could metaphorically reduce to zero the distance within a bar magnet, we would still be expecting that both poles would still remain permanently present. Not the case apparently in the loudspeaker magnets... and my conclusion that this also the case for the individual magnetic field of electrons.

The experiment I carried out is easy to reproduce to confirm the data, but requires true loudspeaker magnets.

"The experiment I carried out is easy to reproduce to confirm the data, but requires true loudspeaker magnets."

Dear André,

I'm pretty sure you will come to similar results by filling two cylindrical bar magnets in repulsive configuration like pistons inside a slide tube with axes along the vertical and loading the upper magnet with your test weights. Axial force dependence between speaker magnets should not significantly alter when reducing the inner bore diameter even when reducing to zero.

I very much agree to your description of a permanent magnet being made up of elementary current loops as also illustrated in Figure 4 of my paper "A 500 Wh power flywheel on permanent magnet bearings", see respective page below.

Edited 2h later:

"I examined the description of your circular magnets as illustrated in Bild 2. I am not certain that they are magnetized in the same manner as loudspeaker circular magnets such as those I used."

In fact, they are: Our permanent magnet bearings throughout work with axially magnetized, speaker-type annular magnets. Please note that in Bild 2 as well as in Figure 4 attached to this post arrows indicate direction of surface currents.

Dear Johan,

"I'm pretty sure you will come to similar results by filling two cylindrical bar magnets in repulsive configuration like pistons inside a slide tube with axes along the vertical and loading the upper magnet with your test weights."

Your are absolutely right.

I carried out multiple experiments with bar magnets and when you cause them to close in to each other length wise with both north poles repelling or both south poles repelling, with the other poles far from each other, you still get the force between 1 pair of poles interacting like with the circular magnets experiment, because the other two poles are now too far from each other to really interfere (the inverse cube interaction drops very fast with distance as you know). See first image below.

But the other pair of poles is physically present all the same at the other ends of the bar magnets, so if you cause the bars to closing in on each other parallel (second image) you will get the force between 4 poles interacting, (two pairs of poles), each magnet providing 2 poles.

However, with the loudspeaker magnets, whichever way you cause them to close in on each other (without letting them touch each other, that is in parallel spin alignment), you will find that no mutual orientation can provide the force for more that 1 pair of poles (one pole from each magnet). Since no magnetic field can exist without involving 2 poles, this can only mean that the poles of such magnets alternate between orientation at some frequency, and the only frequency possible is that of the energy that sustains the field.

I put in my paper only the significant experiment.

I must say that I am thoroughly familiar with these magnets ever since 1982, since we use them to produce a pair of mutually repelling pucks on an instrument meant to help teaching classical mechanics. This pair is used to simulate perfect elastic collisions at our macroscopic scale identical to the elastic collision between two electrons for example (see third link below).

At some point I noticed that the macroscopic repulsion did not obey the inverse square interaction (expected from two repelling electrons) but the inverse cube interaction, which intrigued me a lot and caused me to have closer look.

Towards the end of the 1990's, I was active on the sci.physics site of the Usenet and there was an argument (not initiated by me) as to whether or not the inverse cube interaction was involved for magnetic interaction. It is at this point that I decided to conduct the experiment and eventually understood that the fields of loudspeaker magnets can only behave as those of the individual electrons. I remember that at the time, one physicist with pseudo-name "Old man" reproduced the experiment and came to the same conclusions, which settled the then ongoing argument.

"Our permanent magnet bearings throughout work with axially magnetized, speaker-type annular magnets."

Thanks for confirming Johan. If intrigued by this like Old man was, it would then be easy for you to conduct experiments and verify for yourself whether or not more than one pair of poles can be involved when you measure the force between a pair of such loudspeaker magnets by approaching them from each other without letting them touch each other as I describe or in any other way conceivable.

If you succeed in having them display the force of 2 pairs of poles interacting in any configuration imaginable as can be done with bar magnets, I would be more than surprised, and would reconsider my conclusions.

You can then draw your own conclusions to explain why each such circular magnet seems to be able to provide only one pole to the interaction with an identical second circular magnets (magnetized axially, that is perpendicularly to the surfaces).

http://www.srpinc.org/airtable.htm

„you will find that no mutual orientation can provide the force for more than 1 pair of poles (one pole from each magnet)“

Dear André,

I admittedly have quite a bit trouble to follow the above conclusion: When considering the field of a speaker magnet as equivalent to the one induced by two concentric current loops as indicated in Bild 2 and Figure 4 mentioned above, then we are facing two magnetic dipole fields in concentric antiparallel superposition with the one relating to the outer current loop predominating the resulting field. When loop radii get closer the resulting field gets weaker until it vanishes with identical loop radii as currents fully cancel at that point.

By the central bore of a speaker magnet the pole areas are restricted from full circular, as of a bar magnet, to annular faces, but there still exist 2 poles per magnet. You will easily get to similar conclusion by conceptually reducing the central bore down to zero diameter.

You should know that professional CAD software packages for configuration of permanent magnet systems work equally well on the basis of virtual „magnetic charges“ covering the pole faces as the ones based on surface currents located at the magnet cylindrical surfaces, see references below. Simulating your pair of annular speaker magnets by the surface charge model would clearly imply a 4-pole, i.e. a „two-pole-from-each-magnet“ design.

M. Marinescu, Analytische Berechnung und Modellvorstellungen für Systeme mit Dauermagneten und Eisen, Dissertation, Braunschweig 1979

J. P. Yonnet, Etude des paliers magnétiques passivs, Dissertation, Grenoble 1980

Johan,  I just read your earlier reply t me.  I was too engrossed in your current items.

Our correction factor to for oblateness of  sphere due to peculiar velocity ~c/750,   ( ~400 kms-1)  was  0.999999111. 

"Our correction factor ... was 0.999999111"

Dear Guy,

so the correction you suggest is orders of magnitude smaller than what we have accounted for as due to mechanical stress induced deformation of spinning steel ball at limiting rim speed around 600 m/s. Thanks for your valuable comment.

Andre , Johan, 

As an eavesdropper on your very interesting discussion, I would add that Earnshaw's Theorem  applies  to the requirement of opposing forces for stability.

 Regarding the fractional charges of Gell-Mann quarks referenced by Andre in his 'Last Challenge' paper,  please consider the option of integer charges o the Han Nambu model for baryons.  

See: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1533  (Peter has a presence on R-Gate)

No problem Johan.

I know that my conclusions go counter established theories on electromagnetism.

However, pending an as fruitful explanation as to why the force calculation reveals only one pair of poles being involved both in my experiment and in Kotler's experiment, I must say that I trust this force calculations that can be made from both the data collected during my experiment which directly correlates with the data collected by Kotler et al.

All the more so that this allows directly and coherently explaining electronic orbitals stability and allows at long last establishing a clear mechanics of internal mutual electric vs magnetic energy induction in all localized electromagnetic elementary particles.  

So, pending an as fruitful explanation as to why the force calculation reveals only one pair of poles being involved in my experiment and Kotler's experiment with electrons, you can certainly understand that I have no option but to stick with this explanation.

Also, your fascinating paper about frictionless magnetic bearings gave me plenty of ideas to experiment with these magnets as bearings since I have hundreds of these magnets at hand.

Dear Guy.

Thank you for your reference.

I read the document, and notice that no reference is made to the SLAC experiments conducted during the 2 years period from 1966 to 1968 when was confirmed by non-destructive scattering the actual physical presence of the two types of quarks inside protons and neutrons, and confirmed their fractional charges from the deflected spread of incident particles.

Thank you for your appreciation of my "Last Challenge" paper. You must have noted however that I do not refer to the Gell-Mann and Zweig theory when referring about the up and down quarks but strictly to the SLAC experimental data.

This takes no merit of course from Gell-Mann and Zweig to have logically come up and predicted these fractional charges, but you may have noticed also that once data has been collected, I tend to strictly trust the experimental data and build from this foundation irrespective of what theories may have brought the data to be collected.

The paper is well written and the theory is self consistent in my view, but the conclusions about possible unit charges for the up and down quarks go contrary in my view to the deflection data collected at SLAC in the 1960's. Personal opinion of course.

Regarding QCD, I have an article here from Scientific American (K. Rith and A. Schäfer. The Mystery of Nucleon Spin, Scientific American, July 1999, page 60) which states that even after 40 years of existence, no one had been able to formulate the equations of that theory with sufficient precision to correctly describe a nucleon, which was its stated justification when it was proposed. So maybe someone has been able to since then, since Peter states that the theory is now successful.

I would be interested indeed in locating a paper describing the correction that was made since 1999. I must say I have not given a second look to QCD since then.

"you can certainly understand that I have no option but to stick with this explanation."

Dear André,

I would certainly do similar as the mechanism you suggest obviously is consistent with observations. Maybe your "monopole" model in fact is quite an adequate approach to description and easier understanding of the atomic scale mechanisms you are dealing with, even though apparently not perfectly matching the macroscopic dual speaker magnet situation in detail.

Unfortunately, I'm not that much familiar with particle physics to fully appreciate the real strength of your concept. I'm grateful, anyway, having had the opportunity to meet you here and exchange some basic ideas on how things might work. I'm happy as well that you got some idea from a foreign language presentation of the fascinating field of contactless magnetic suspension in research and technology. 

"I'm grateful, anyway, having had the opportunity to meet you here and exchange some basic ideas on how things might work."

Dear Johan,

I am also very appreciative of the conversation we both had. Strange how it drifted from charged particles translating on forced circular orbits inside macroscopic rotating bodies to discussing the structure of magnetic fields from our common but diverging long standing experience with different aspects of circular magnets.

I have learned a lot.

Indeed, now that I have read your paper, I wonder why this idea of using the so familiar circular magnets as frictionless bearings for rotating motion never crossed my mind. Thanks for the info. So simple and straightforward.

"I'm happy as well that you got some idea from a foreign language presentation"

Actually, I can't speak your language, but I found out long ago that to be able to access all important experimental sources, English is clearly insufficient. Being of French descent, I soon discovered important research that never was translated to English, mainly leading edge research from the first half of the 20th century. So as needed, I eventually learned a few other languages to sufficient reading proficiency to be able to access all the sources I needed, German was one.  I found that contrary to general expectation, far from all past leading edge important research is currently available in English, and some are even out of print in their original languages, left to be painstakingly re-discovered from scratch by the coming generations.

Andre, Johan;

Gentlemen,

Before you part, would either or both be kind enough to comment regarding magnetic intrinsic spin moments versus iso-spin moments external to the nucleus?  

Also, to comment on Strong vs E-weak and EM forces in a  nucleus regarding quarks and hadrons in the context of Andre's paper "The last Challenge of Modern Physics" regarding Non-destructive and Destructive Scattering.

Thank you, Guy

Dear Johan and All,

Thanks for your post on my question that led me to this thread. I posted a paper on RG entitled ON THE SPIN ANGULAR MOMENTUM OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES that suggested that the concept of half integral values of spin angular momentum can be explained if elementary particles have a gyroscopic structure. And recently I posted few papers on General Relativity that suggested that elementary particles may be the result from the materialization of spacetime structures. Therefore the suggestion that all are connected is reasonable.

Kind regards,

Vu.

"... materialization of spacetime structures.

Dear Vu,

thanks for your comment. Your above statement apparently fits to what I've stated earlier in the present discussion:

"... the idea of two complementary states of energy, i.e. a propagating (radiation) and a localized one (mass). I supposed the latter to result from „condensation“ of propagating energy into a rotating status of existence."

Your earlier statement,

"... the concept of half integral values of spin angular momentum can be explained if elementary particles have a gyroscopic structure."

(as further treated in your above mentioned paper) appears compatible with equivalence of elementary spin and polar angular momentum of a classical cylinder, Iω = ℏ/2, as suggested in annexed paper.

Dear Vu B Ho,

 I agree with you that there seems to be a link between space time structure and electromagnetic energy internal structure.

Dear Guy,

The concept of isospin was conceived of before it was known that protons and neutrons are not elementary particles.

From the perspective that up and down quarks have been experimentally identified as being charged elementary particles like the electron, this means that by structure they are electromagnetic in nature like the electron. In turn this means that just like the electron, they have a similar spin characteristic.

Logically, magnetic spin is naturally associated to rotation, metaphorically speaking, either clockwise versus counter-clockwise, which can account for the fact that only two relative rotation orientations are possible.

Another possibility exists however, that of cyclic reversal of polarity according to some frequency of the magnetic aspect of elementary particles, which also guarantees only two relative spin orientations are possible, which seems to be the coherent option if only two magnetic poles are involved in the Kotler et al. experiment with electrons and with the circular magnets experiment, as force calculation seems to indicate.

So, if this turned out to be confirmed, then this would also apply to the spin of up and down quarks, each cycling at its specific frequency, and if their carrying energy is confirmed as also being electromagnetic in nature, then this also applies to charged particles carrying energy, leaving nor role to play for the concept of isospin.

.

Dear Andre,

Thank you

The leptons are said not to sense Strong force or isospin and do not exhibit quadrupole moments.

Are you familiar with the Han and Nambu model of integer charge quarks and with the Hubius Helix model of the electron by QuiHong Hu, (similarlly by Willimson and Van der Mark)where twist adds more meaning to clock/ anti-clock for Up and Down spins and for entanglement?

Might these answer or resolve some issues?

Three-Triplet Model with Double SU(3) Symmetry

M. Y. Han and Y. Nambu

Phys. Rev. 139, B1006 – Published 23 August 1965

Qiu-Hong Hu

 arXiv:physics/0512265v1 [physics.gen-ph]