The Coulomb Force equation in newtons: F=e2/4πε0d2

The energy in joules adiabatically induced in each charge at distance d from each other: E=dF=e2/4πε0d

Dear Preston,

Thank you for this so comprehensive overview of the current sum of kinematic knowledge about the electron. Actually the most complete summary of current mainstream knowledge about the electron. I took note of all of it for further examination.

I will try to be as comprehensive in my comments so that you can truly compare the traditional kinematic mechanics approach with the electromagnetic mechanics approach.

You wrote: " Actually electrons have numerous characteristics: 1) mass, 2) charge, 3) per axis spin angular momentum of ħ/2, 4) total spin angular momentum of √3/2 ħ , 5) magnetic moment, 6) the "4π symmetry of spinors"."

From the electromagnetic mechanics perspective, electrons and the elementary charged and massive scatterable subcomponents of protons and neutrons are made of stabilized electromagnetic energy oscillating at their rated frequency in standing mode, and are the only carriers of charge and mass in the universe. The electron is clearly established as having an invariant rest mass and an invariant charge.

These invariant characteristics of electrons are analyzed from the manner that they come into being from decoupling electromagnetic photons of energy 1.022 MeV in context of the trispatial vector geometry, as analyzed in this paper published in 2013:

Article The Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces Model

Also described from a different but correlated perspective in this more recent paper:

Article Electromagnetic and Kinematic Mechanics Synchronized in thei...

The relative magnetic "spin" characteristic of the electron is also analyzed in this latter paper.

You wrote: " So electrons are not "point-like behaving charges", as was thought up through the 1910s."

Of course, they are not point-like in the mathematical sense, but as clarified in the following paper published in 2024:

Article From E=mc2 in normal space to E=m0cIcK in the complex config...

they do behave as if they were point-like in all scattering experiments in which they were involved with other charged elementary particles, notably with other electrons. Meaning that however close to each others' center-of-presence two electrons were made to collide head on, they elastically rebounded without any unbreachable limit having been encountered at any distance from their centers, contrary to protons and neutrons, against which incident electrons do elastically rebound at a precise unbreachable limit corresponding to their established volumes, if incoming at velocities below a given energy threshold.

If energyzed above this threshold, they penetrate this volume to rebound in a highly inelastic manner against the three inner charged and massive point-like behaving elementary subcomponents that establish their inner structure, as confirmed during the non-destructive experiments carried out in the first 2 years of operation of the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) from 1966 to 1968.

You wrote: " The behavior of these particles is more complex than Coulomb's "law", and Coulomb's law has a limited domain of applicability."

Maybe you never came across the following evidence, but the only way ever established to cause free electrons to move on given trajectories is to accelerate them by means of calibrated E-fields, and control their trajectories other than straight line by means of an additional calibrated B-field; said calibration can be made only via application of the Lorentz force equation F=e(E+ v×B), the first term of which (F=eE) is the Coulomb law. Also clearly put in perspective in the second paper referred.

So, the Coulomb law, acting exclusively on their invariant charge, does account entirely for the amount of energy induced in the electron at all velocities, the adiabatic nature of which energy induction was established in the 1930's by Aram d'Abro, as put in perspecive in this paper published in 2022:

Article Demystifying the Lorentz Force Equation

You wrote: " The actual basis of all fundamental particle characteristics is rotational motion centered at √3/2 c, and varying such that rotation minus precession is +/- the maximum value. "

In electromagnetic mechanics, the rotational kinematic solution is replaced for all elementary electromagnetic particles by the reciprocating motion of the particle's energy between a local E-field state of its stabilized energy and a local B-field state at the rated frequency of its energy.

In electromagnetic mechanics, spin is a relative magnetic property related to repelling parallel magnetic coupling between two charged elementary electromagnetic particles or attractive anti-parallel magnetic coupling between two charged electromagnetic elementary particles instead of a mechanical intrinsic rotating property.

Inverse cube anti-parallel magnetic coupling is what explains electronic orbitals pair filling, covalent bounding between atoms to create molecules and Cooper pair formation as analyzed in the kinematic and electromagnetic machanics synchronization paper linked above.

Explained for the de Broglie double-particle photon analysis in this paper:

Article De Broglie’s Double-Particle Photon (Expanded republication PI)

And experimentally confirmed during this experiment carried out in 1998 and whose account was published in 2013:

Article On The Magnetostatic Inverse Cube Law and Magnetic Monopoles...

Larry Carlson

You ask: " In terms of gravitational "time dilatiion," is there some sort of relationship, for example, between airplane's level above Earth, diminishing electron orbitals, less gravity, emission of photons, and the rate at which an onboard cescium clock will "tick."

I will try to keep my explanation simple.

Actually, time-dilation is a concept that was popularized by Einstein with his Special Relativity theory that took root in 1907 when adopted by the theoreticians physics community.

In the 1970's, more than 15 years after Einstein passed away (1955), Hafele and Keatings conceived of an experiment meant to prove that time ran faster for masses taken away from the large mass of the Earth.

There is more to it than just this, but I won't get in more details for now, but this is the general idea.

Atomic clocks, operate by measuring the frequency of electromagnetic radiation emitted by atoms. Electrons in some atoms like caesium are known to emit a photon of a very precise electromagnetic frequency (number of cycles per second) when returning to a reference rest orbital after having been excited to momentarily jump to another reference orbital further away from a caesium atom nucleus.

It so happens that this phenomenon is real, that when an atomic clock is taken in altitude, the frequency of the emitted reference photon increases. This was interpreted as a "proof" that time was accelerating for these atomic clocks taken away from the surface of the Earth, in confirmation of Einstein's theory.

You ask: " In terms of gravitational "time dilatiion," is there some sort of relationship, for example, between airplane's level above Earth, diminishing electron orbitals, less gravity, emission of photons, and the rate at which an onboard cescium clock will "tick.""

It so happens that there is a possible explanation other than time-dilation, that has nothing whatsoever with time, that would then be constant.

All atoms happen to be almost empty systems of elementary particles, with massive nuclei located very far inside the electrons "cloud" (as many negative electrons about the nucleus as there are positive protons in the nucleus).

This other possibility is that the electrons simply get closer to their nuclei as the clock is taken away from the Earth, due to the outward pull exerted on the whole structure of their atoms diminishing with the increasing distance from the Earth.

As the electron on the ceasium atom reference orbital becomes closer to the nucleus, its energy is now increased (due to the Coulomb law in action between the negative electrons and the positive protons -- the closer they are to each other the more energy they have) which would explain why the reference photon now emitted further away from the large mass of the Earth now has a higher frequency, that has nothing to do with time dilation.

Shortly explained, this is the other possibility of explaining why atomic clocks run faster in altitude.

Complementary info.

When Einstein came up with his Special Relativity theory published in 1905 and adopted by the theoreticians physics community in 1907, the inner structure of atoms as well understood today was still unknown.

Larry Carlson

Actually, we know that the fact that the Earth is rotating about its north-south axis implies that the velocity of bodies at its surface varies with the latitude, very slowly at the poles and at maximum velocity at the equator.

If interested, I give a simplified equation to calculate these velocities westward for any latitude in Section VII of this paper:

Article On the Einstein-de Haas and Barnett Effects

Although we do not notice it, each of us goes permanently at these velocities depending where we reside on the planet.

So when the Hafele and Keating plane moved in the eastern direction (contrary to the direction of rotation of the Earth), at the same altitude, the energy naturally induced in all charges of which the atoms of the plane is made of the energy corresponding to the plane velocity minus that due to the opposite velocity of the Earth rotation, causing the frequency of the cesium reference photons to diminish with respect to the frequency increase due to simply be flying at this altitude.

Contrariwise, when the plane moved in the western direction, the frequency of the energy of all charges making up the plane and the clock due to its altitude will increase by the energy due to the velocity of the Earth in the westerly direction at the latitude at which the plane is flying.

It must be understood that in reality, the whole Earth and all bodies, including our own bodies are not continuous masses, just like the solar system is not a continuous mass but a "system of orbiting smaller bodies, the planets, asteroids, etc", and that each of them are not continuous masses either, but accumulations of atoms, each of which and their nuclei are also "systems" made of elementary charged and massive particles (electrons and the also charged and massive subparticles making up the protons and neutrons in all atomic nuclei), which are the only true carriers of real mass in the universe, as put in perspective in this paper:

Article From E=mc2 in normal space to E=m0cIcK in the complex config...

Consequently, all of the energy related to the rotation of the Earth is distributed among these only real massive elementary particles of which all atoms of the Earth is made. The same for the only real massive elementary particles of which all atoms of the plane and of the atomic clock of the Hafele and Keating experiment.

I tried to simplify as much as possible the explanation, but all is explained in complete detail in the whole set of papers of electromagnetic mechanics, with mathematics that anybody can numerically confirm with a simple pocket scientific calculator.

Hope that this answer to your question make coherent sense.

Larry Carlson

You wrote: " Maybe I have missed something, but perhaps you are inadvertently confusing the directions. ‘The Earth rotates in an eastward direction. This means it spins from west to east, which is why the sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west.’ Kinematic dilation was recorded as being greater with respect to the cesium clocks in the Eastward bound plane."

You are right of course. I do regularly mix both directions even as I painstakingly re-verify them mentally! Sorry for the mishap.

You wrote: " Presumably, as per your explanation, the frequency of the energy of all charges making up the plane and the clock due to its altitude will increase by the energy due to the velocity of the Earth in the Easterly, not the Westerly, direction."

That's what the frequencies analysis seems to reveal. And that it will be diminished by this amount of energy when moving in the opposite direction.

You ask: " In any case, is this supposed to have something to do with the ‘Einstein-de Haas Effect) ‘ that is mentioned in the paper you linked to?"

Absolutely, since that from the electromagnetic nature of the electron's carrying energy revealed from the electromagnetic mechanics perspective, the direction of motion of each individual electron is determined by the direction of vectorial application of its carrying energy momentum component, which is rigidly perpendicular to the related B-field of this carrying energy, which is itself rigidly perpendicular to the related E-field of this carrying energy, as experimentally confirmed by the Einstein-de Haas effect and by the Barnett effect, as analyzed at the beginning of the referenced paper.

So according to this apparent state of fact from the electromagnetic mechanics perspective, the forced physical direction of motion of all atoms in the mass of the rotating Earth about its axis of rotation can only distribute the local momentum energy of the Earth among all elementary charged particles carrying energies, as in the Barnett experiment, and also to the carrying energy of all electrons and other charged and massive subparticles of atomic nucleons of the atoms making up the plane and atomic clock.

You wrote: " But yes, the concept of time dilation seems like a mathematical or metaphysical explanation. It seems more plausible that clocks slow down as a result of physical reasons. Since our notion of time is related to what clocks ‘say’, we get the impression that time, as an abstract agent of nature, changes."

My opinion also.

Larry Carlson

You wrote: " I gather that we agree that, "the frequency of the energy of all charges making up the plane and the clock due to its altitude will increase by the energy due to the velocity of the Earth in the Easterly, not the Westerly, direction.""

Yes. And this is in addition to the H&K plane and clock having had all of their little crowd of atoms tighten all of their inner distances between electrons and nuclei due to the diminishing outward pull on their charged and massive elementary subcomponents exerted at 10 km distance from the Earth surface by the huge crowd of charged and massive elementary particles making up the atoms of the planet, which already increased the frequency of the photons emitted by the reference caesium atoms.

You wrote: " That is, the plane with the greater velocity will have an increase in the frequency and energy with the result that there will be greater "time dilation" as reported by the onboard clock."

This is the original interpretation that "time dilation" is involved. This option in no way involves any tightening of the orbitals of the emitting electrons about the atomic nuclei.

Tightening of the electronic orbitals that increases the energy of the electrons due to shortening of distances between the charged electrons and charged nuclei is the electromagnetics related reason for the increased frequency of the emitting caesium atoms, that involves no "time dilation". This is actually the alternate physical reason for the increased rate of the clocks, which actually does not measure the number of times that a photon of the reference frequency is emitted, but the actual frequency of these photons.

You wrote: "I have read that redshifting of some sort occurs both within the hypothetical photon clock as well as in a cesium clock. This also seems to be related to Can we compare this loss of energy and reduction of frequency that you seem to be mentioning to red shifting in some way?"

Note that this can only be a misconception, since the distance run by an emitted reference photon and the recording target is only a few centimeters.

At the speed of light that the photons move at, there is no physical time for any redshifting to occur.

You wrote: " According to A.I.’s summary, “The frequency of the cesium atom’s hyperfine transition — which defines the “tick” of the clock — appears redshifted (lower frequency) when observed from a higher gravitational potential. The redshift doesn’t happen withinthe atom itself — the cesium atom’s transition energy remains constant in its own frame. The shift is observed externally, when comparing two clocks at different gravitational potentials.”"

Note that when asked general questions all current AI can access only the standard "time-dilation" theory generally publicly discussed on the internet; actually what is overwhelmingly published on this issue on the internet, due to their built-in generalization operating mode.

This is how neural networks operate. They may not even access info from papers mentioning other possibilities that are not openly discussed on the internet if not specifically given such formal reference to read and assess, if the text is even openly publicly available.

You wrote: " This along with your comments seem to suggest that, when the clock is moving at a greater velocity or higher velocity, the momentum of the earth transfers energy to the atoms of the plane and its clock, so that, if I recall correctly, the electron orbits become more compact."

Note that I don't know how to comment this, because the energy of the Earth atoms is not "transferred" to the atoms of the plane and its clock. The momentum energy of the Eath, plane and clock is "the sum" of the individual momentum energies of all elementary charged and massive particles of which all atoms involved are made.

You wrote: " Perhaps this means that the atom will change its state more often so that light will be emitted at a higher frequency more often so as to cause a cesium clock to tick more frequently… or something to that effect."

As mentioned previously, the clock does not measure the number of photons emitted per second, but the number of times that the energy of each photon oscillates per second. In other words, it measures the electromagnetic oscillation frequency of the reference caesium photons, which is rated at 9 192 631 770 cycles per second at sea level, and becomes higher with altitude due to the tightening of the distances between electrons and their atomic nuclei.

You wrote: " But if so, why is there said to be an observed red shift or a red shift at all? Indeed, a red shift seems to imply fewer pulses of energy which might trigger a clock to tick at a slower rate."

As mentioned, the AI has access only to what is discussed on this issue over the internet. It is unable to pass judgment as to whether what is said is physically consistent unless specifically trained to access sufficient information to determine validity. It works only with the info that it can access.

Larry Carlson

You wrote: "A.I. does say that the frequency does not change in the onboard cesium clock locally (just as some say that the clock aboard the moving train carriage doe not slow down in comparison to when it was stationary) because time itself slows down."

This is to show that understanding the process according to SR and GR doesn't make people aware that when charged particles come closer together, which electrons and protons are, their energy can only increase, simply according to the Coulomb interaction discovered about a hundred years after Newton's "Principia..". The fact is that the "charge" characteristic of "charged particles" is not taken account of neither in SR nor in GR, as if electrons had only a "solid mass" characteristic Newton style, as if Coulomb's discovery had not been made or did not apply.

You wrote: " But a more physical way of interpreting A.I.’s claim, is that the EM frequency has physically changed within the cesium, photon, or other clock aboard a moving, but, unlike the stationary observer, the onboard passenger would not be able to notice or measure this change because time itself has supposedly changed (aka, time dilation)."

I agree.

You conclude: " In short, again, it seems misleading to suggest that time itself dilates when one really just means that a clock has locally slowed down."

My view exactly.

You wrote: " What you are stating seems related to the general principle in chemistry that ‘When the electrons fall back down and leave the excited state, energy is re-emitted in the form of a photon. The wavelength (or equivalently, frequency) of the photon is determined by the difference in energy between the two states’. Presumably the lower the electrons fall, the higher the frequency of the energy that is emitted."

Yes. This is exactly what I have been trying to bring back to the awareness of the theoreticians physics community for the past 30 years. You may find this hard to believe, but most physics theoreticians that I have discussed with had no idea what I was talking about and all remained sceptical and could not integrate this piece of info.

It so happens that since all macroscopic masses, stars, planets, any object about us, and even our own bodies are made of simple accumulations of atoms, all subject to the effect that you mention, well understood in the chemists community, has overreaching consequences when conceptually extended to all existing atoms.

If interested, this paper published in 2013 does provide such an analysis:

Article Inside Planets and Stars Masses

Even more, this is what explains the heat increase with depth in the Earth, leading to the estimated over 5000 degrees Kelvin at its center. Put in perspective in the second part of this other paper:

Article On adiabatic processes at the subatomic level (Expanded repu...

You wrote: " It may also be relevant, as I have read, that the human eye cannot detect color changes if the change in light frequency is not great enough (to reach a certain threshold)."

This makes sense to me too.

All of electromagnetic mechanics of elementary particles is now available for study in the series of papers formally published since 2007 and whose links are listed in this index:

Article INDEX -Electromagnetic Mechanics (The 3-Spaces Model)

This series of papers was designed so that careful reading and study of the sequence in order of publication dates, with personal numerical confirmation of each equation by means of a pocket scientific calculator, amounts to one undergrad session in electromagnetic mechanics study.