return to homepage
return to updates
The Electromagnetic Field
(and the Strong Force)
by Miles Mathis
The standard model still doesn’t have any clear idea of what causes either the electric or the magnetic field. QED has finally come to the realization that the E/M field must be mediated by photons in a physical field, which is a great advance over classical models that treated the field in a completely abstract manner. But newer theories still tend to dive off into non-physical or non-mechanical waters in a heartbeat, whenever something can’t be explained easily. The best example of this is the messenger particle, one of these mediating photons of the E/M field that can cause either attraction or repulsion (depending on the fonts etched upon the faces of the photons, one supposes).
This short paper is meant to fill this theoretical gap to some extent, by taking some of my findings that are buried in other papers and collecting them here, under one heading. The first of these is found in my paper on Superposition, where I show that stacked spins cause the wave motion of the particle. I also showed that the way the spins are stacked explains the mysteries of superposition, including all the various experimental "paradoxes." I show that they are not paradoxes, they are just poorly defined experiments with poorly defined particles. Once we apply gyroscopic exclusion rules to the spins, we find that each spin must be outside the influence of inner spins. So that, for example, an axial spin of R around the radius must create an x-spin of 2R and a y-spin of 4R and a z-spin of 8R. The four spins can’t all be about equivalent axes, and no one has noticed this before me.
These stacked spins cause the particle's linear motion to wobble, and this wobble is the primary wave. Secondary waves are then created by the relationships of each spin to the other. If we then propose that all spinning particles are emitting a charge field, and that the charge field is a real field of photons, we can create the electric and magnetic field quite easily, with straightforward mechanics. The linear energy of the photon field is the foundational electric field and the angular energy of the photon field is the foundational magnetic field. I say "foundational" because the photon field cannot create electricity or magnetism without the presence of an ion field. The photons must drive electrons or positive ions in order to create the forces of electricity and magnetism. Normally, the photons cannot create macro-fields on their own (except in the case of gasses).
Any simple analysis of spins stacked in this way must show that they are orthogonal to eachother. If the first spin is axial, then the second spin must be end-over-end about an x-axis tangent to the sphere. This is the only way to keep the second spin from interfering with the first gyroscopically (or the first with the second). The third spin must likewise be outside the influence of the inner two, which puts the y-axis tangent to the great sphere of x-spin. It is not only tangent, but orthogonal. The three axes must create the 6 right-angle directions. This explains the relationship of the magnetic field to the electrical field. It also explains the relationship of both fields to the motion of the particle itself, since the flux of both fields will be determined directly by the speed of the particle and its radius, as you see.
By this theory, a non-spinning particle could exist, but it would have no emission and no E/M field. It would also not travel as a wave. Because it had no emission field, it would have no repulsion in the vicinity of other particles, and would be ripe for collision or inclusion. It would not have a negative charge; it would have no charge. This may explain some phenomena not so far explained, or explained poorly.
These three spins can obviously vary in direction. The x-spin can be +x or –x, for instance. And a +x spin need not cause a +y spin. We have 16 possible combinations.
This must also impact nuclear or chromodynamics, since once it is understood that the E/M field is caused by emission, it can be proposed that the E/M field of the nucleus sums outside the nucleus, but does not pertain inside the nucleus. As you can see from the list above, we have many different types of nucleons. Neither the proton nor neutron comes in only one form. I show elsewhere that protons can be emitting the charge field either forward (in line with the linear motion) or to any of four sides (up, down, left, right). If we compose the nucleus with the right protons and neutrons in the right positions, we can create a nucleus with no inner charge. In other words, charge is channeled through the nucleus by baryon spin, and so does not cause a repulsion between protons. This is how nuclei are really formed, and I will soon show that all known nuclei fit this form. There is no charge field within the nucleus, and can be no charge field within the nucleus. It would have prevented any formation to begin with, whether we have a strong force or not. With the current model of charge, no protons could ever have gotten close enough to turn on the strong force.
With no E/M field acting between nucleons, the strong force would then simply become an analogue of gravity at the quantum level. We don't have a strong force in the nucleus, we have gravity. Current physics has badly mis-measured gravity at the quantum level, as I have shown.
The standard-model strong force has never been analyzed rigorously for consistency. If the strong force drops off as fast as is claimed, in order to keep it from snagging nearby electrons, then it doesn’t explain nuclear creation at all. It is much less successful explaining nuclear creation than my quick theory here. Detractors of my theory will ask when my E/M field turns off, but I can turn the tables and ask when the strong force turns on. If its influence is limited to a radius of 10-15m, how do protons ever get close enough to call it up? The whole mechanism is a blatant contradiction, since if protons could get that close without the strong force, we wouldn’t need the strong force to explain them being that close. But in order to turn the strong force on, we have to bring them that close. Is no one embarrassed by this? It is not a paradox, it is just illogical reasoning.
It is not just that the current model is based on illogic, it is that it is ignoring all kinds of simple math. Given the current mass, charge, and maximum speed of the proton, there is no possible way to put two protons near enough for long enough to turn on the strong force. You will say that the Sun can create that force, from the outside, using pressure to crush the E/M field repulsion. Maybe, but then it would be the Sun, not the strong force, that overcomes the E/M field. To bring the Sun into the argument, you must believe that the E/M field inside the nucleus tends to bounce back after being crushed, necessitating the entry of the strong force to prevent it from bouncing back. But I can simply deny that. Why not just postulate that the Sun crushes the E/M field, squeezing it out of the newly created nucleus like orange juice? After the helium or whatever escapes the Sun, the E/M field stays out of the nucleus, because it is too tight to get back in. If the field turns back on, it does so only outside the nucleus, since that is where the spin turns back on. The whole idea of the strong force is unnecessary.
If you say that we still need the strong force to explain the energies required to split atoms in accelerators, I say that is false, too. Gravity is more than enough to explain those energies, once you recognize that gravity exists at the quantum level and has been drastically mis-sized there by the standard model. I have shown that Newton’s equation is a compound equation: that his inverse square law applies to the E/M field at the macro-level, not to gravity. Therefore gravity is 1022 times stronger at the quantum level than we have been told. If we combine this with my newly recalibrated E/M field (which also resists acceleration), then we have plenty of force available to explain fission energies, without recourse to the strong force at all.
Go to my paper on Asymptotic Freedom.
Go to my second paper on the strong force.
Go to my paper on how to build the nucleus without a strong force.
Go to my paper on diagramming the nucleus, where I show exactly how the baryons channel charge through the nucleus.
Go to my paper on the Semi-Empirical Mass Formula, where I show how the strong force was first used (1932) simply as a fudge factor, to fill the hole created by a mistakenly large E/M field.
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.