"Steve Bell" wrote in message
...

"Surfer" wrote in message
...



Here is a Kerr shell about half way to completion. It looks a little
squished due to perspective:

http://sb635.mystarband.net/kerr.pdf

The spherical shell is produced by the Kerr frame-dragging effects.
It's
pretty, but I don't believe an actual electron shell is so perfect. I'm
thinking about how to produce a deterministic structure that would
actually
look stochastic to the eye.

Those are very nice plots. The idea that particles could be held
together by GR effects is an intriguing one.
If Gravity Probe B were to confirm Cahill's frame-dragging prediction
then I believe the frame-dragging term in your model would need to be
given an extra component to make it respond to velocity through
3-space--as described here.

Novel Gravity Probe B Frame-Dragging Effect
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0406121

So I think the spherical shell would then be caused to distort by
fluctuations in 3-space velocity, which are probably stochastic.

-- Surfer


From reading the above, it is obvious that Dr. Cahill know his stuff. His
mathematics is immediately clear right from the start, based on first
principles. But if the stronger-than-Kerr frame dragging effects are
significantly bigger than Kerr, to me they should have been seen by now. I
believe the researchers are having a difficult time right now in quantifying
any significant frame dragging effects due to unanticipated determinsitic
errors. But since the above equations predict different-than-Kerr frame
dragging effects, if the researchers attain the level of precision and
accuracy they think they can, the GP-B data should show if Cahill is correct
or incorrect. Right now, I bet on Kerr, but we will see.

I've read a lot of Cahill's work now and I see what he is getting at. He
describes full blown gravity as containing the usual Lorentzian specially
relativistic effects plus a velocity vector field of space itself. A test
particle in free fall in this velocity field is coasting along a geodesic,
but with a generalized definition of what a geodesic is as compared to
classic GR. This vector field can flow, and it is this flow effect of space
that is actually frame dragging. This is a very interesting approach towards
gravity, and is a strong competitor to any other well formulated theory I've
seen. If GP-B comes up with numbers in agreement with Cahill, then I'd say
this guys is on his way to recognition, and justifiably, so if the
predictions agree. Of course it's a natural question of what exactly it is
that's "flowing," and I'd imagine Cahill would say space itself. This smacks
of an aether, but in truth, in classic GR, space itself get curved, which is
just as "aetheristic" to me.

Steve Bell


I've never heard the name Cahill associated with frame dragging, it was
known early on by Lense-Thirring and then formalized by Kerr in the 1960s.
It's amazing that not much work was done for a few decades until Kerr did
his work. The Kerr frame dragging effects I am referring to in an atom are
not mass based, they are charge based. I worked up an electronic
Schwarzschild representation of an electrostatic Coulomb field first, then
generalized it to an electronic Kerr field. It looks like it unifies geo
and
electro magnetism.

I would say the stochasticism is probably only approximate. One of the
neat
things about using Kerr orbit theory, is that shells can be produced, as
my
pictures show. I was thinking about what a completely isolated hydrogen
atom
in ground state would settle down to, and I believe that then, the shell
goes away, and the electron settles into a plane perpendicular to the roll
axis of the proton. The magnetic fields of the electron and the proton
would
naturally line them up like that. The proton is still spinning, but at
zero
inclination for the electron, the electronic Kerr frame dragging effects
do
not throw out of plane (but there is an effect on the binding energy).
Then,
if this hydrogen atom were to be brought close to other matter, this
pristine condition gets modified, the electron gets pushed out of plane by
exterior forces, the frame dragging effects kick in and the shells are
produced. The motion though, through the shell is not as pretty as I
showed
in the image, but gets deterministically chaotic, which might look
stochastic, but really is not. There is, though, an effective randomizing
effect, where due to the chaos, the electron's orbital plane is all over
the
place, and any orbital-based magnetic field gets washed out. It's
instantaneously there, but it's direction changes fast enough to get
washed
out. I think this is why it looks like there's no orbital-based magnetic
field interaction in an atom, at least in spherical shells anyway.

Steve