Electron
Ring Vortex Model
By William F. Hamilton III
Space-Ether Series Paper 3
Abstract: In
1897, the English physicist J.J. Thomson discovered the electron and proposed a
model for the structure of the atom. Thomson knew that electrons had a negative
charge and thought that matter must have a positive charge. His model looked
like raisins stuck on the surface of a lump of pudding.
The purpose of this paper is to propose an
ether-vortex model of the electron as a rotating toroidal ring vortex and a
positron as a counter-rotating toroidal ring vortex that is based on a
synthesis of various other proposed models of particle physics that may
eventually be integrated into a unified theory.
Introduction:
The first attempt to construct a physical model of an atom was made by William Thomson (later elevated to Lord Kelvin) in 1867. The most striking property of the atom was its permanence.
Thompson wrote the following on
Vortex Atoms 1
“After noticing
Helmholtz's admirable discovery of the law of vortex motion in a perfect liquid
-- that is, in a fluid perfectly destitute of viscosity (or fluid friction) --
the author said that this discovery inevitably suggests the idea that
Helmholtz's rings are the only true atoms. For the only pretext seeming to
justify the monstrous assumption of infinitely strong and infinitely rigid
pieces of matter, the existence of which is asserted as a probable hypothesis
by some of the greatest modern chemists in their rashly-worded introductory
statements, is that urged by Lucretius and adopted by Newton -- that it seems
necessary to account for the unalterable distinguishing qualities of different
kinds of matter. But Helmholtz has provided an absolutely unalterable quality
in the motion of any portion of a perfect liquid in which the peculiar motion
which he calls "Wirbelbewegung" has been once created. Thus any
portion of a perfect liquid which has "Wirbelbewegung" has one
recommendation of Lucretius's atoms -- infinitely perennial specific quality.
To generate or to destroy "Wirbelbewegung" in a perfect fluid can
only be an act of creative power. Lucretius's atom does not explain any of the
properties of matter without attributing them to the atom itself. Thus the
"clash of atoms," as it has been well called, has been invoked by his
modern followers to account for the elasticity of gases. Every other property
of matter has similarly required an assumption of specific forces pertaining to
the atom. It is easy (and as improbable -- not more so) to assume whatever
specific forces may be required in any portion of matter which possesses the
"Wirbelbewegung," as in a solid indivisible piece of matter; and
hence the Lucretius atom has no prima facie advantage over
the Helmholtz atom. A magnificent display of smoke-rings, which he recently had
the pleasure of witnessing in Professor Tait's lecture-room, diminished by one
the number of assumptions required to explain the properties of matter on the
hypothesis that all bodies are composed of vortex atoms in a perfect
homogeneous liquid. Two smoke-rings were frequently seen to bound obliquely
from one another, shaking violently from the effects of the shock. The result
was very similar to that observable in to large india-rubber rings striking one
another in the air. The elasticity of each smoke-ring seemed no further from
perfection than might be expected in a solid india-rubber ring of the same
shape, from what we know of the viscosity of india-rubber. Of course this
kinetic elasticity of form is perfect elasticity for vortex rings in a perfect
liquid. It is at least as good a beginning as the "clash of atoms"
account for the elasticity of gases. Probably the beautiful investigations of
D. Bernoulli, Herapath, Joule, Krönig, Clausius, and Maxwell, on the various
thermodynamic properties of gases, may have all the positive assumptions they
have been obliged to make, as to mutual forces between two atoms and kinetic
energy acquired by individual atoms or molecules, satisfied by vortex rings,
without requiring any other property in the matter whose motion composes them
than inertia and incompressible occupation of space. A full mathematical
investigation of the mutual action between two vortex rings of any given
magnitudes and velocities passing one another in any two lines, so directed
that they never come nearer one another than a large multiple of the diameter
of either, is a perfectly solvable mathematical problem; and the novelty of the
circumstances contemplated presents difficulties of an exciting character. Its
solution will become the foundation of the proposed new kinetic theory of
gases. The possibility of founding a theory of elastic solids and liquids on
the dynamics of more closely-packed vortex atoms may be reasonably anticipated.
It may be remarked in connexion with this anticipation, that the mere title of
Rankine's paper on "Molecular Vortices," communicated to the Royal Society
of Edinburgh in 1849 and 1850, was a most suggestive step in physical theory.”
Today, Thompson’s vortex atom seems like a quaint
piece of physics history and the standard model of the electron assumes the
electron to be a point-like particle without extension in any dimension. However, it seems that the properties of an
electron are such that it is not reconciled by a point-like particle and for
this reason string theory has proposed that particles such as the electron are
extended objects called strings. Whether
this is proven in the long run remains to be seen as there have been few tests
of string theory to allow us to believe that it is a description of the real
world. With the negation of the ether in
modern physics, albeit it may be making a comeback, the electron as a standing
wave or vortex in the ethereal medium has generally been rejected, but now
needs to be reconsidered.
The Electron Ring Model:
From Model of the Electron by Ph.M. Kanarev.
Here is a table listing the properties of an electron:
|
Particle |
Symbol |
Anti- |
Rest mass |
L(e) |
L(muon) |
L(tau) |
Lifetime |
|
Electron |
|
|
0.511 |
+1 |
0 |
0 |
Stable |
The ring model of an
electron is derived from an ether vortex flow.
This vortex creates a pressure normal to its spin that is conjectured
produces the electrostatic charge. The
magnetic pressure gradient is normal to the electrostatic pressure gradient and
acts along the central axis of spin. A
vortex contains a low internal pressure, and a high stream pressure. When the stream flows mesh, the particles will
attract one another and when they clash, will repel. The vortex field produces a pressure gradient
that diminishes with radius from the core boundary. The force between electric charges is
inversely proportional to the radius (sq) and directly proportional to the
kinetic energy (mv2) of one vortex times the kinetic energy of a
paired vortex with the sign relative to the circulation vectors.
From Model of the Electron by Ph.M. Kanarev.
To quote Mayeul
Arminjon again:
“I assume that the particles themselves are made of that microether:
each of them should be some kind of organized flow in this imagined
fluid—something like a vortex. (This is Romani’s idea of a “constitutive
ether”).
The toroidal form of the electron vortex may be generated by the helical
form of the photonic wave that produces the electron in pair creation. The antimatter counterpart of the electron,
the positron, has a circulation in the opposite sense.
Barry Mingst has said,
“A long time ago, Lord Kelvin (W. Thompson), Lorentz, Maxwell, and Hemholtz recognized that the behavior of matter had characteristics similar to vortex ring structures in a fluid (the atomic vortex hypothesis). This concept was abandoned in the early 1900's. This abandonment was more philosophical than substantive with the real problem being the math describing the model was, "at the time", intractable. Must more success was being obtained by QM methods. This same model rears up again in modern physics in the form of the mathematical topology of string/super string theory as well as in superconductivity and superfluidity. Penrose's twistor is a vortex ring, as is a magnetic field. It is interesting to note that vortex rings can sustain transverse vibrations (analogous to guitar string vibration), indeed Kelvin proved mathematically that linear disturbances in a saturated 3D vortex fluid (he termed a vortex sponge) would produce propagation of pure transverse waves identical to the equations and properties that describe the propagation of light through space. It was this relationship as well as many others that caused this hypothesis to be considered seriously. It also is interesting to note that Maxwell used this conceptual model as the basis for his derivation of the EM relationships.”
Conclusions:
There is little doubt that the Aether Theory of Space is experiencing a revival among scientists especially in the light of further experiments and discoveries. The idea of a universal substance-energy that lies at the root of all material manifestation is a magnificent conception that conveys to the mind a unifying principle behind all physical phenomena. Paralleling this revival is the concomitant reappraisal of particle vortex theories. It is possible that we will see many new developments in the physics of the 21st century.
1.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Vol.
VI, 1867, pp. 94-105; reprinted in Phil.
Mag. Vol. XXXIV, 1867, pp. 15-24.
"Ether" or "Aether"?? The term for the cosmological medium, used by those scientists of the 1800s and early 1900s most engaged with the question, was "ether" with an "e". Sometime in the 1950s, the spelling was changed by ether-critics to "aether" with an "a". This was done in part to remove confusion with the chemical fluid ether as used for anesthesia, but mostly the replacement appears to have been undertaken to relegate the ether of space into ancient history, as an unproven speculation similar to Aristotelian elements of "fire, air, water and earth". I have used the "Aether" spelling in the past myself, but now believe this form carries with it an assumed disproof, that the cosmological medium or energy in space does not exist. Since I fully accept the work of Dayton Miller as a proof of the existence of the ether, use of the other term is no longer acceptable. Consequently, until some better evidence or argument is put forth, I use the term used by Crookes, Lodge, Faraday, Michelson, Moorley, Miller, Tesla, Reich and even by Einstein, spelled with an "e": ether