11 Pages

## Structure of Article(s)Edit

So, this is the place. Do you think it would work if we create various articles on this main page - BLP, RM, GUTCP - and use a common reference section? At some point these can be broken up into various main pages. Neufer (talk) 20:43, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

hi Dave, I think all your suggestions make good sense. And if they don't, this is a wiki and I'm sure we will find the right solution quickly. Please start editing. Optionsgeek (talk) 03:09, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
Cool. You got it. Neufer (talk) 21:10, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
In practice,it seems best to include references with each main article.Neufer (talk) 13:16, September 24, 2014 (UTC)
Not sure - WP style seems to defer the references to the bottom of the page, which seems to make it a little easier to read. In any case, I imagine we are going to be reorganizing the pages pretty soon here as content gets added and we want to keep it readable. Thanks, by the way, for your contributions! Optionsgeek (talk) 16:50, September 24, 2014 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean. The reference mechanism sees the contents as one article, not the three that are planned. Ill do a little fix when I get to a normal computer.Neufer (talk) 04:55, September 26, 2014 (UTC)
I modified the Wiki Welcome and moved part to become the lede of the GUTCP section. The new Fact Sheet is a great idea. Too bad it's not yet possible to link directly to GUTCP references. Maybe one day.
Please feel free to help me edit the fact sheet! I saw your comment at SCP and was in complete agreement. We should probably put a little structure around the list, hydrogen/orbitsphere, gravitation & pair production, hydrino, etc. Optionsgeek (talk) 17:28, September 26, 2014 (UTC)
Sure. I'll make changes whenever I see a better way to organize the information on any of the pages.Neufer (talk) 22:44, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

References:

Maybe we should view these Wikia articles as easy fodder for future Wikipedia articles, even non-BLP related ones. Good referencing lends authority to encyclopedic articles. Currently, certain kinds of references are discouraged from use on Wikipedia. This is one reason the BLP entry relies on ancient references. (Of course, there are other problems there.)

Few reporters have explored the BLP story yet. We can anticipate a time when reporters will be scratching for every bit of information they can find out. The first resources they will plunder will be the press releases, the demo videos, the interviews, and maybe even the GUTCP. So it is likely that these resources will someday be used for articles in noted publications that may easily be referenced by Wikipedia articles.

So I'm thinking that for this project, we should allow ourselves to reference:

• GUTCP Chapters
• BLP Press Releases
• Demo and Interview Videos (preferably with time code)

This will free us up to describe devices and theories. Not sure if taking info from the BLP website directly is a good idea. But papers linked by the website might be useable for this Wikia project. Neufer (talk) 15:37, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that in Wikipedia's Tesla Motors article, they do refer to Tesla's website information (Board of Directors), so it is sometimes appropriate to reference the subject's website, especially if there is no alternative source. It is recommended that a "retrieval date" be included in the reference since websites tend to change over time.Neufer (talk) 22:28, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

## Structure of trapped photon Edit

Can anyone provide a simple, intuitive description of the trapped photon. I understand it is an electric field that satisfies a wave equation (i.e. divergence of the gradient is 0, velocity is speed of light, etc.) However, does it occupy the volume between the electron and the nucleus? Someone mentioned that it is on the 'inside' surface of the two-dimensional bound electron's orbitsphere. What is the relationship of the motion of the current density of the orbitsphere to the wave motion of the trapped photon? Optionsgeek (talk) 13:36, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I found what I was looking for in the section on excited states, roughly equation 2.33, which shows why an excited state will radiate. Now I just need to work through all the $\bigotimes$ operators. Does anyone know what function this corresponds to in MATLAB? Optionsgeek (talk) 12:50, September 26, 2014 (UTC)
I think that the critical part is the lightspeed requirement. It seems to me that the charge isn't going to be moving at lightspeed ever since it travels at the angular velocity needed to keep the charge in 'orbit.' The harmonic modes also revolve around the z-axis but they are maintaining the orbital angular momentum, which requires finite speeds. It seems to me that you have to use the fact that the photon is creating a 'standing wave' over the orbitsphere (the harmonic modes), which does not require the electron charge to travel at lightspeed but allows the lightspeed photon to phase-match the electron charge, i.e., that the lightspeed photon and the low-speed electron charge can form the same patterns. This must be different in some way from just the electron charge because even when in a harmonic mode (think of a p or d orbital) as the ground state they do not radiate. It seems to be the presence of the photon that allows radiation. This suggests that it is the electric field of the photon that creates the lightspeed components, although how that is different from the electron charge escapes me.Huub Bakker (talk) 19:22, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
When you get a chance, take a look at 2.33. Not sure what your experience with Fourier analysis is, but it will have to better than mine if you actually understand it. Anyway, as I say below I think 2.33 is the key to the whole thing. Essentially, the photon is "painted" to the inside surface of the electron, and together they create a "doublet" function (derivative of an impulse) that has the necessary radiative components. Optionsgeek (talk) 20:56, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
(Hoping that my comments don't get ditched a third time.) This is the beast and it supports what I was saying. The addition of the photon allows the Haus radiation condition to be met. I'm not sure what the differences actually are and I'm not keen to tackle the spacetime Fourier equations to find out. Huub Bakker (talk) 22:51, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
OK, after looking this over a bit more I can say that the magic is in 2.25. This has the form
surface charge = fundamental * Dirac doublet - 1/n * fundamental - (1+1/n) * harmonic
where fundamental is the fundamental (spherical harmonic) mode (which is a constant sphere), Dirac doublet is two impulses back-to-back and opposite in sign, harmonic is one of the (spherical) harmonic modes and n is the quantum number of the excited state.
This equation says that it is the Dirac doublet that provides the Haus condition for radiation and that this applies to the fundamental mode, not the spherical harmonic modes. Also later in the chapter is the proof that the rotating spherical harmonic modes cannot meet Haus' condition.
Physically we can say that the fundamental * Dirac doublet is two concentric shells, one of negative charge density and one of positive charge density, each infinitely thin and touching each other. One of these is due to the electron charge and one is due to the photon. There is another shell with a charge density of -1/n, which is due to the photon and a further shell with modulated charge density from both. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
I presume that the doublet comes about because the electric field of the photon is 'polarised' so that the part closest to the electron charge is positive and that closest to the nucleus is negative. I don't know why this should satisfy Haus' condition since I can't see why this has spacetime Fourier components synchronous (in phase?) with a photon. (Unless it comes about due to radial movement??)
As to why the harmonic modes, that create 'standing modes' similar to that of a photon (the last term), don't have Fourier components, I've no idea. After all they are synchronous with a photon travelling at lightspeed because there is a photon there in phase with that charge density. (Edited) Huub Bakker (talk) 23:53, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
again, thanks for your thoughts. Your conjectures, while incomplete nonetheless are helping me along. I agree that 2.25 is the money shot. It's a little puzzling that Mills can say something like "see chap. 2" and expect someone to work out what it means. Let's keep going. Hopefully he'll respond to your SOCP post with some further clues. Optiongeek (talk) 03:50, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
That's because he wants you to work it out from there if you can. Saves hiim big time. I asked a question about neutrinos earlier and he ended up adding a couple of paragraphs to the book when it turned out it needed more explanation. I try to do due diligence by scouring the book first.Huub Bakker (talk) 06:04, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Huub, I concur with your analysis. The key is the use of the doublet function. What I'm curious about is why an excited state generates a doublet, but a hydrino state, with a +1 trapped photon, doesn't. Optiongeek (talk) 21:50, October 2, 2014 (UTC)

## Instability of excited state Edit

I'd like to start a topic discussing the instability of the excited state. From equation 2.33, we see that radiation arises due to the doublet function caused by the superposition of the electron and the photon's charge density distribution. Perhaps a simpler explanation of this structure will help the layman (i.e. me) 'get' this key function. Optionsgeek (talk) 15:50, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Also, it would be useful to know what, exactly, is occurring as a photon radiates. At first, I assumed that a photon traveling in space is a discrete packet of electro-magnetic energy. However, that implies that a photon radiated from an excited hydrogen atom will radiate with a specific vector. However, this raises the issue of how that direction is chosen, and what is keeping the packet of electromagnetic energy "together". I am beginning to wonder whether each radiated photon is really just a spherical wave that expands through space in waves concentric from the original hydrogen atom. I.e., there is no preferred vector. This implies photonic energy isn't really quantized at all as it moves though space - it only becomes quantized when energy from enough photons superpose at a locus - say a hydrogen atom's electron orbitsphere - and a quanta of that energy can be 'captured' as a trapped photon. Thus, photons interaction with matter is quantized, but transmission through empty space has no such quantization requirement. Optionsgeek (talk) 18:58, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

The photon is an orbitsphere with the electric and magnetic field lines around it. It certainly does radiate away in a given direction. I'm not sure what direction that would be but I suspect it will be a direction lying in the x-y plane with the actual direction being due to the orientation of the harmonic mode at the time of emission. Chapter 4 deals with the photon and shows what it looks like when free.Huub Bakker (talk) 19:27, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Huub, I really appreciate your feedback! So on page 197, there's the phrase "as r goes to infinity" which is what got me thinking along those lines. And in fact, if the basis of quantization of angular momentum only manifested at the interaction of photon with matter, then how would prove or disprove that? There's no way to observe purely photonic interaction - matter has to be involved somehow in any sort of detection scheme. Anyway, just a thought experiment. Optionsgeek (talk) 20:13, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
Ah. If you look at equation 4.23, which this refers to, you will see that it is Etotal. Also the previous equation has "For an assembly of incoherent emitters". This is for a whole bunch of photons, not one. The ensemble will behave as a plane wave "as r goes to infinity". Huub Bakker (talk) 22:56, October 2, 2014 (UTC)

## GUT-CP HistoryEdit

There seems to be little information on Mills' history before BlackLight Power. I was interested to read in the section on Origins about his relationship with Hermann Haus. What is the source for this material? I'd like to investigate this further if possible. Huub Bakker (talk) 23:29, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

## Free PhotonEdit

I'm having great difficulty in getting a decent description of the free photon. I've tried a number of different descriptions on SoCP but, so far, nothing that works. If this wiki is going to illuminate the theory to people then it is going to have to provide simple descriptions of phenomena like the free photon.

As far as I can make out so far, the spin angular momentum of the photon comes from the rotation of the fields around the orbitsphere at lightspeed. This somehow produces the wave pattern that we see in the laboratory reference frame by having changing components transverse to the line of travel. Not sure how this can be when the fields are constant around the orbitsphere. The orbital angular momentum comes from the precession of the fields around the axis of travel, the 'electric field rotation'.

This view ties with the polarisation of an electron coming from the precession of the fields, as shown in Mills' tome. This also means that a photon can have orbital angular momentum that matches the polarisation; -h-bar for left-handed polarisation, +h-bar for right-handed polarisation, 0 for linearly polarised. For elliptically polarised it suggests ±h-bar/2 or some other value, which doesn't seem right. Huub Bakker (talk) 23:29, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

OK, looking over Jeff Driscoll's presentation on pair production, it looks like I was right with an earlier incarnation of this. It's the spin angular momentum that determines polarisation. This is caused by the rotation of the fields around the axis of travel. It does indeed mean that a linearly polarised photon (being two circularly polarised photons, superimposed) has a total spin of 0 and that an elliptically polarised photon (two circularly polarised photons of unequal strength) has a total spin of 1/2.
Orbital angular momentum must come from variations in the field strength over the orbitsphere, i.e., equivalent to the harmonic modes of the electron orbitsphere.
That just leaves the matter of how the electric and magnetic fields form a wave in the laboratory frame. Huub Bakker (talk) 21:18, October 28, 2014 (UTC)