We had to tackle this issue to uncover the exact physical nature of EM waves being created and propagated. We started with the Abraham-Lorentz force, aka "Radiation Resistance", which creates a recoil effect on the accelerated particles that create the EM waves. The underlying reason to the question "Why is an EM wave created and then radiate" is because Nature finds ways to dissipate away concentrations of energy. If you drop a rock in a pond, Nature dissipates the impact energy and does not let it remain at the point of impact. The energy is carried away in circular waves, ripples of water on the pond. The concentration of energy at the impact point is distributed into larger and larger volumes of matter and space. In the case of the 'rock dropped in pond' the medium that aids Nature in dissipating the concentration of energy - is water. For EM waves, we took the atmosphere out of our reasoning by observing "a radio antenna creates and propagates electromagnetic waves in open space" as all our satellites and space vehicles.have demonstrated. It came down to this: there is a polarizable medium, there are constituents of the Vacuum, able to continue the polarization of an electric field, and a magnetic field, through space. Since the electric field and the magnetic field have both polarities (electric field of an EM wave takes on both negative and positive polarity, magnetic field of an EM wave takes on both North and South poles) the constituents of the Vacuum are dipole in nature. We know the Vacuum has an impedance of 377 ohms and a Vacuum Permittivity and a Vacuum Permeability. There must be constituents of the Vacuum to manifest the impedance, permittivity, and permeability. You cannot get 377 ohms, permittivity, and permeability from "absolutely nothing" 1) oscillating electrons in a radio antenna create local polarization of the Vacuum constituents immediately adjacent the antenna 2) just outside the layer of immediately adjacent Vacuum constituents, similar polarization of the Vacuum constituents occurs, and continues on, in a radiative dissipation, carrying the concentrated energy away from the antenna, at the speed of light The problem in modern physics is "space is empty". Challenge someone with conventional thinking to explain where the 377 ohms comes from and their claim that there is utter 'emptiness'. We work at artificial gravity devices and our work forced us to think beyond conventional physics to motivate the creation of in situ, non-translatory accelerations of the charged particles in our devices to mimic conventional accelerations of matter objects. Conventional physics has chronic, stubborn 'blind spots' that are clung to with blind obedience. . .
Much respect to those of you who are not mind controlled by conventional physics theory. Conventional physics theory has many intentionally ignored observables, and many illogically explained observables. My unifying physics theory, matter theory, logically explains 23 fundamental physics observables the standard model can not explain and only assumes. It also eliminates most of the illogic in physics. Matter theory is for sale.
Thank you for this frank and illuminating snippet of information. I like Richard Feynman's lectures on physics books too, because he too is upfront about problems in basic electromagnetism.
Matt Sands wrote an article on the Quantum Effects of radiation in Storage Rings while he was working at SLAC. The punchline was that the electron trajectories have little kinks in them when a photon is radiated. He said, "That was the most creative thing I've done." I got to work with him a few decades back at UC Santa Cruz.
What I would like to know is how two charged particles interact. If there are two charged particles that are the same charge, they are supposed to repel, and if they are oppositely charged, they are supposed to attract. What is going on between them that causes them to either repel or attract?
I believe that's the right hand rule of charge/magnetism, similar charges create a magnetic field of the same polarization causing repulsion, opposite charges create a magnetic field of opposite polarization, causing attraction.
@@BigMac2222 But that is not how magnetism works. With any magnetic field, there is both a north pole and a south pole. You can cut a permanent magnet in two until you have just a single atom and it would still have a north and a south pole, as would all of the other pieces. In order for charges to work like that, the charged particles would have to be monopoles, but we have no observational evidence of a monopole.
@@BigMac2222 look up the missing secrets of magnetism by Ken Wheeler. The ether causes all force in motion (magnetism) and all dielectric acceleration (aka magnetic attraction). What we call poles are simply the ether's field pressure being amplified by the matter that is charged (coherently spinning). If you actually study the effect the north vs south pole has on light, you'll see that the N and S pole are not equal. They are different by a ratio of 1:phi. This is important. Science does not examine this.
@Robert Hunt You are correct, that is a train wreck. I understand basic calculus, but I am no math major. I wonder how they can make the distinction between the parts they completely made up and the parts that were empirically observed.
At the surface of the wire, we have Poynting vector, the directional energy flux (the energy transfer per unit area per unit time) of an electromagnetic field. E x H is derived from Poynting theorem, which physically means the energy transfer due to time-varying electric and magnetic fields is perpendicular to the fields.
Have a look at the Hately antenna which started as an attempt to fabricate a Poynting vector from plain E & H fields. Little was published because the IEE didn't like that it appeared to break the [far field] radiation equations (transmit area '=' receive area). Prof Hately came and presented the theory to local IEE sub-centres.
0:47 Such a formula actually exists, and is not approximated nor valid just in a particular case, and it's usually referred to as "angular distribution of radiation"; it defines the power radiated per unit of solid angle, it is deduced from Lienard-Wiechert fields (exact solutions to Maxwell's equations) and you may integrate the formula in the whole 4π solid angle to obtain the Larmor formula. For reference, see the notorious Jackson's book "Classical Electrodynamics", §14.3 "Angular distribution of radiation emitted by an accelerated charge" Would you please let me know if you were aware of this approach? And if so, why then you instist that there is no exact formula? Maybe I'm missing something. P.S. In my opinion, in classical electrodynamics there are indeed some problems unsolved and phenomena not well understood to this day, such as the problem of self-force, mass renormalization and the radiation emitted by a free falling charge.
That's a show stopper question. So Maxwell's EM equations and their quantum mechanical variants (QED) don't handle such a basic phenomenon. We may be amused by how idiotically arrogant were authorities on "science" in ancient times, but in the future people will be amused at our time period as well. Lots of ego-driven posturing by "authorities" who engage in less than honest theorizing today. For example the "solutions" of Einstein's GR equations which involve ridiculous information non-conserving coordinate transforms and the sneaky redefinition of "coordinate singularity" to fake removal of the real event horizon singularity.
One big issue is the teaching of waves in 1d (x-t) as a starter to plane (plain?) waves which leads to the (strong) expectation that a radiated 'particle' (quanta) of energy can ever be a plane wave in 3d+t. Maxwell's equations, with their Curl E and Curl H components does not support plane waves with Curl=0, nor that they are sine (simple exponential) waves. It is worth looking at Wavelet theory (e.g. G. Kaiser, A friendly guide to wavelets. Boston, Mass.: Birkhäuser, 1994.) to see that the EM field photon transmission can occur properly (see Part 2, Chapter 9: Introduction to Wavelet Electromagnetics). As to why there is photon transmission in 'all' directions.... (never explained by Mott)
Note that "moving up and down very quickly" means not more than about 0.000001 m/s - otherwise, the antenna would glow because the current would be sufficient for welding.
Near-field magnetic fields are fully coupled to the source charges. A very well made electromagnet with say a toroidal core can be, ideally, entirely near-field. In fact so near-field that the magnetic field cannot be discerned externally. Such an electromagnet makes a very poor radio transmitter. A superconductor displays only near-field electromagnetic fields. I have wondered if thermal loss from conductors, and electromagnetic cores, is in fact also far-field phenomenon. Becoming photons as it breaks away from the source. The fact that arrangements that are entirely near-field are, essentially, free of energy losses and far-field radiates accountable energy leads to an interesting possibility. Perhaps thermal losses in a conductor is simply some of the, otherwise, entrained magnetic field associated with an accelerating, or simply moving, charge breaking off so to speak, into thermal photons. I have wondered if this might simplify what seems to be an area that has not been thoroughly explored. These are only my thoughts and I know they may not be of much value to anyone but myself. But I too have wondered and was thrilled to see you bring up the subject Dr. Unzicker.
I went the other direction and started studying radio transmitters and receivers. And if I am getting the problem of polarization right, then you left out the spin orientation of the photon. I am looking at coherency of the transmissions signal and finding that all the numbers of transmission energy Vs receiving energy, well, lets say the numbers aren't available. Been combing over U-Tube video and Google terms for at least a year now. The worst part is that it leads me to believe that the capture, pass through, or reflection also is affected by the orientation of the electron requiring at least two parts to make up the electron.
Dear Mr Unzicker, I was under the impression that radiation from a charged particle was understood in terms of the Lienard-Wiechert Potencials within the classical electrodynamics framework of Maxwell’s equations. How does this fit with the idea that the radiation of a charged particle is not understood? Is it a matter of limitations of classical electrodynamics more generally, or is it that even within that theoretical framework the issue is not really understood? If so, how? I would really like to get your thoughts. By the way, thank you so much for your videos, they are refreshing.
I went back to my old notes on classical electrodynamics. LW potentials for a charged particle explicitly show their dependence on the velocity of the particle. From there you can derive the analytical formulation for the electric and magnetic fields (grad, curl, and t-derivatives) and then you can, at least in principle, take the vector cross product for the fields and derive a Poynting vector. So I guess I am back at my originally posted question. What am I missing?
Not true. Given charge and current density distributions, general formulas exist for calculating the scalar and the vector potentials, and they can be found in every college EM textbook (e.g. Griffiths). Not being able to derive a pretty-looking closed-form expression for the potentials is one thing, but we do have the formulas. Dipoles, quadrupoles, and such are mere approximations to the sources meant to characterize the dominant form of the radiation fields.
If you don't mind, there is enough space here to quote that formula. However, if you examine textbooks such as Feynman Lectures II, chap. 28 on electromagnetic mass or Landau-Lifshitz II, § 75, it is clear that such a formula *cannot* even exist: simply because classical electrodynamics is inconsistent due to its infinities.
Don't have L&L or the FL with me, but for a general expression of the scalar and vector potentials given charge and density distributions, see Sec 10.2 of Griffiths.
@@TheMachian The formula that Dr Unzicker means, results from the formulas of the radiation of an Elementary dipole. The difference to that formulas is just the formula of the electric current: Whereas for the Elementary dipole you assume an alternating current within a small piece of wire, you have to suppose the length of the dipole as the way in that a single particle is braked down. This is then the formula for the so called "Elementary current": i = square root (( m * a ) / mÜ_0 ) m = mass of the elementary particle a = Accelelation of the elementary particle mü_0 = Permeability constant in vacuum Because of there is existing radiation only, if the acceleration is negative ( braking radiation ), the acceleration "a" needs to be set as: a = - | a | Therewith - in case of radiation - you receive an imaginary Elementary current as follows: i = j * square root (( m * | a | ) / mÜ_0 ) j = imaginary unit Quod erat demonstrandum
@@TheMachian feynman assumes a radius of 0 for the electron, but a charged sphere with r>0 has 0 e field inside. Maybe setting eq 28-1 to mc2 will give the real radius of an electron. Just a beginners guess
Maxwell's Laws pertain to electricity - which means it is a macro-theory because electricity is a macro-phenomena. Maxwell's Laws work quite nicely when controlling streams of electrons (or other charged particles) - at macro-scales. As a macro-theory, it does not attempt to describe the micro-constituents (atoms/electrons) and may or may not apply at the atomic scale. According to Maxwell's Laws, electrons in atoms should radiate energy and fall into the nucleus. Since atoms are stable, a better *model* was needed. Quantum Models were created to provide a better description of atoms (and eventually scaled-up to molecules and solids). The quantum algorithms produce very good results and satisfy the "empirical" - but provide no geometry or structure that would "explain" the atomic-scale phenomena. The models use billiard-ball and planetary metaphors ... and those metaphors work to some extent, but provide too little detail to actually explain the "spin" and "magnetic moment" phenomena while remaining internally consistent.
Dear professor Unzicker. Thank you for your video. We do not know how they radiate, but do we know how much radiation is emitted? Or do we only have approximations? Also, do accelerated charges radiate as seen by co-accelerated charges? Do we know the answer to the latter question? Thanks.
I am not prof. There are approximations, such as for the Hertz dipole. I think we do not even know how much radiation is emitted at all for the general case. Co-accelerated charges: good question! Honestly, I have to think about. Feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo-> Email.
@@TheMachian Thank you for your answer. Your email does not appear on your channel in the "About" section. I've looked online a bit, maybe you have not set it visible. You can check yourself from a private browser.
Simple answer...Pushing an electron through an ocean of electrons leaves a wake. Faster acceleration equals higher frequencies. Plancks constant gives us the unit of energy per displacement event. Have I moved up on your reading list yet ;-)
At high energies it would be unsolved because particle production can happen in many ways and you're operating well beyond the uncertainty limit. What's the issue here?
Building these precise detectors are a challenge, I think even they has discovered the law, but they won't let it go public easily... It has a concern turning into weapon like atomic bomb for bad mind...
Only fools answer rhetorical questions that nobody knows the answer to. I am one of those so here goes. The charge is derived from elementary particles that have a quantised imbalance between emanating and entering fundamental particles ( call them virtual photons if you like). Any quantised energy that can accelerate these charged elementary particles is vectored inwards through their core and is comprised of photons (decelerated groups of fundamental particles) itself. This creates an oscillation in the imbalance ( the charge ) that is always emanated as photons perpendicular to the instantaneous vector of the oscillation . The frequency and therefore energy of the em waves emitted is the frequency of the oscillating charge and requires a higher energy photon to cause those oscillations. The core of long lived elementary particles is a portal to another dimension, the 4th, ( space-time is 3 dimensional) that is the source of matter, antimatter, dark matter and dark energy all of which are comprised of fundamental particles.
I think the solar wind may occur as a result of processes in the atmosphere producing ions of like charge to the sun which means they repel more up than down or horizontal
I remember deriving EM radiation from the last chapter of griffiths' electromagnetism. There are some examples there... including acceleration in a straight line. Do you mean that we don't know how the radiation from accelerating charged particle in an arbitrary path looks like? Or do we still don't know what's *actually going on* when radiation is produced? Is there no explanation? Or is there a working equation, just too hard to solve?
@@TheMachian That's plain wrong there's a formula and you can find it in all undergrad special relativity courses. You can solve Maxwell Equations getting Lienard-Wiechert potentials and then you solve for them for a charge in generic motion. From here you'll get E and B fields and evaluate Poynting Vector, integrate over whatever solid angle you prefer and you'll have your radiaton.
So if you accept the holography of the interpretating standing wave-packaging formation in which any vertex-node alignment of modulo-frequency logarithmic numberness is conducting prime-factoring vector-values, then the interpretating onion layer orbital-orbits of AdS/CFT density-intensity real-numberness condensation strata can be imagined to make sequential reference-framing of the logarithmic temporal relative-timing ratio-rates of resonant probability strata Reciproction-recirculation Singularity positioning quantization, Sublimation-Tunnelling emitter-receiver quanta cause-effect. All-ways all-at-once logarithmic Simultaneity sync-duration connectivity functions are associated with the observations made in Spectroscopy of emission-absorption banding in resonant bonding. The Chain Rule "says" most about the Polar-Cartesian self-defining e-Pi-i infinitesimal coordination of mass-energy-momentum, statics, dynamics and acceleration of information modulation cause-effect In-form-ation substantiation. (No doubt clear as mud on first glance, but everyone has to look,listen, hear and see for yourself.., on encountering the first experience of inside-outside holographic Reciproction-recirculation Singularity in Actuality)
I think you're confusing radiation reaction with radiation which aren't the same. The magnetic and electric fields can be calculated exactly within CED for an arbitrarily moving charge via the Lienard-Wiechert potentials. On the other hand, modifying the Lorentz force law to include radiation reaction has been far more controversial up to around 1950 IMO when Landau & Lifshitz built CED via the Lagrangian approach. The problem is that an infinite negative bare mass is needed to balance the infinite positive EM mass to make its observable mass finite, as pointed out by Sidney Coleman in his 1961 paper _Classical Electron Theory from a Modern Standpoint,_ which is available online. Alternatively, we can make the bare mass 0, and restrict the EM wavelength of applicability to around the Compton wavelength. Nowadays, this approach comes under _effective field theory._
@@TheMachian lienard- wiechart IS general. May you please offer a detailed description of a radiation instance that cannot be calculated via lienard wiechart ?
U seem soo intelligent, PLZZ u figure it out, and also plz change the physics 🙏, I came to realise by looking at u that human specie is quite intelligent, plz fix the physics sir, will be obliged🙏
@@TheMachian the Liénard-Wiechert potential is a general formula for the radiation of an arbitrary charge and current distribution. Then you can easily substitute the charge and current distribution of an arbitrarly moving charge in it. Every physics undergrad should know this. It's so basic even wikipedia has an article on it, with formulas.
@@zoltankurti Sorry, this isn't correct. Check out Feynman II chap. 28. He shows that the radiation depends on dot a. Alternatively, Landau Lifshitz II § 75.
@@TheMachian Feynman II chap 28 deals with the problems of a _point_ charge. If you assume a non-singular distribution of charge, then you have a well-defined formula for the EM field of an arbitrarily accelerated "sphere" of charge.
I tinker with physics as a hobby and also this concept: "accelerated charges radiate". This statement is not correct and certainly misleading: constant accelerated charge does not radiate (e.g. a charge in a gravitational field does not radiate)! I concluded that it is the change of acceleration (jerk) that causes charge to radiate energy. I then assumed that it was just a simplification towards the not-educated public and real physicists know better... (and that i might be wrong here as well). But why does everybody insist that acceleration causes radiation while it is obvious that this is not the case?
@@TheMachian thanks fro the reply. I find it hard to belief a static configuration will radiate: radiation has a wavelength wavelength less then infinite. Can i read something about this somewhere?
I have a work of mine on longitudinal magneto-dielectric waves and transverse electromagnetic waves that answers this question. By the way please if there is anyone here that knows legitimate German science publishing company, please share.
accelerated charges do not radiate. Decelerating charges radiate. There is a big difference here because accelerating charges gain mass while decelerating charges lose mass (presumable at least in part due to conversion into photon energy). people have been accelerating electrons at high velocities billions of times in vacuum tubes from the cathode TOWARDS the anode (ie. before collision there) without anyone noticing radiation from acceleration per se. Linear accelerators are used for electrons because they do not radiate upon acceleration, but require deceleration in the momentum vector when undergoing transverse acceleration by magnetic field as required to produce radiation after acceleration.
Interesting. Hm. Linear acceleration is a special case. But mind that also accelerated charges can radiate; an extra force is therefore needed to compensate the radiation loss. Acceleration and deceleration can change under Lorentz transformations, thus I am not sure if your proposition holds.
@@TheMachian cant we treat non linear acceleration (generally angular/circular acceleration) as a combination of deceleration in the linear momentum vector and acceleration in a transverse vector? Also, why does acceleration (defined here as increase in momentum to distinguish from deceleration) per se have to always require emission of a photon? I understand the concept of a kickback from acceleration but such kickback is very low energy compared to the photons that are normally discussed as resulting from acceleration. I have not seen a single example of photon emission from linearly accelerated electron. In every case, angular momentum change is required.
The number 137 is all over in my 3 books in coppy right. some ideas come from a DNA picture that decoded and practicly all data from NASA one way or another is found in it. - In such picture the flower of life is found and there are six posible forms to fill this flower, out of this 6 forms 3 pairs are made and in each one one sequence goes from the out side to the inside and the other goes from the inside to the out side a thing that suggests that to me explanes the changes in polatity of our star or our Sun, in 2 pairs in each flower 4 hehagonals(orbits) are found and in the other pair in each flower 2 hexagonals or orbits are found so in total we have 20 hexagonals and in all of them ENTANGLEMENT is found in cross section from north to south in such a way that if you add one pair all of the others will add the same in each orbit respectively; The picture its round and the equator divides the positive side from the negative side, in my work the north side all are positive or pairs and the south side all are not pairs while the equetor or neutral part is made of both charges so it ables the system to be leveled by the neutral since it may go up or down as needed by the system. If you fold the picture by the equator and the same you fold the axis from north to south in the photograph you will make 4 parts out of the picture, if you count each part but do not count the folded axis that to me are neutral ones and make 2 pairs in cross section and add each pair you will get the same result that is why I say so that the 4 forces cancel out. One pair is made of 19 places, one more of 42 places and the last is made of 61 places in each one respectively and the following numbers 126-114-834-714-918-1404 if you add them you get 4110 and if you divide it by 137 you get 30 times, you might say that this is pure coinsidense but the number 137 in all my books is found all over the places and forms like the next: 137/17126.594 that is the mass of the 118 places of the periodic table all added = 125.01163 - 125 = 0.1163 that is almost perfect and the # 125 is mentioned in the video BEYOND HIGGS: THE WILD FRONTIER OF PARTICLE PHYSICS to be very important just take a look to the next numbers: 125/300000 K/S that is the everage speed light in our yellow star belt = 2400 times. 2400/3141600 that is the PI one million times = 1309. Have notice that the PI is found in all kinds of common denominators for exemple if we add the 3 FACES of the TZOLKIN that is a work of mine that comes from a Mayan Callender we get 31416. 2400/1712659.4 that is the periodic table mass over 100 times = 713.60809 that is a number near to 714 that is a number from above that belongs to one flower(42-inside-out side). 89.28 is a number that comes from the SERNA S HOLLOGRAM that is my work that comes from the Tzolkin callender, we get it by adding the gravity of the 8 planets in the disk that give us 77.86M/S2 plus the Sun gravity that is 274M/S2 so we get 351.86M/S2 that if we divide it by 31416 that is the result of the 3 FACES of the Serna s Hollogram = 89.28. The faces of the Serna s Hollogram are the next that will explane in more detale later in here: 10920 HIGH FACE that are all the places of 6 tablets(Tzolkins) all added. 10416 MIDDLE FACE that we get by not addig BLACK color due that the Tzolkin divides by 8 colors or orbits. 10080 LOW FACE comes by not counting BLACK nither WHITE, black and white are neutrals in the Hollogram. As told before any number MUST to go UP or DOWN even ANY CONSTANT so the cosmos wont be a rigide place so lets continue with the 125: 89.28/713.60808 = 7.992922. 89.28/714 just mentioned = 7.9973118. 2400 from above/1092000 that is high face but 100 times over = 455. 2400/1041600 midle face times 100 = 420. 2400/ 1008000 low face 100 times over = 434. 125/31416 = 251.328/3.1416 = 80 251.328/17126.594 or periodic table mass = 68.144392/1.618 = 42.11435 its near #42 or places from a flower and the # 42 is all over for sure. 1.618/251.328 = 155.3325/77.86 or the gravity of the 8 planets in the disk = 1.9950231. Check out the next: 125/17126.594 = 137.01275 not bad ha¡? Lets take a look to the #42 that are the petals of the flower of life found in DNA. 42/137 =3.2619047/1.618 = 2.0160103. 42/10920 or high face = 260 that are the petals of the flower of life. 260/300000 = 1153.8461/3.1416 = 367.27976/1.618 = 226.99614/17126.594 or periodic table mass = 75.448833/3.1416 = 24.01605 not far from the ours of a day that as well is all over just waite to see. 42/10416 or middle face = 248. 42/10080 = 240. 42/31416 = 748. 42/17126.594 = 407.77604/300000 = 735.69795 that is common denominator of 7.35 related to the H wave length. 42/300000 = 7142.8571/314160 = 43.9824/3.1416 = 14. 43.9824/17126.594 = 389.39653/77.86 or the gravity of the 8 planets in the disk = 5.0012397 lets see the #24 that are close to the hours of a day. 24/10920 = 455. 24/10416 = 434. 24/10080 = 420. 24/31416 = 1309. 24/300000 = 12500. This is just a bite my friend Unzicker - Hope it will be of some help to understand better the cosmos or anlist the #137. TO BE CONTINUED hope for a repply from you.
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace when 375 starts up it’s roll. Then it will leave you with a 3132 difference in two 10016 numbers. I was following your initial chart program to my understanding.
@@brendawilliams8062 Sorry but I am bad in math and really dont know much of numbers but sure it wont take me long to come up with some coinsidense with those numbers like say 357/300000 = 800 times. 89.28/357= 3.9986559.
![Kodak Black - Catch Fire [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4ch-olIuZo/mqdefault.jpg)
We had to tackle this issue to uncover the exact physical nature of EM waves being created and propagated. We started with the Abraham-Lorentz force, aka "Radiation Resistance", which creates a recoil effect on the accelerated particles that create the EM waves.
The underlying reason to the question "Why is an EM wave created and then radiate" is because Nature finds ways to dissipate away concentrations of energy.
If you drop a rock in a pond, Nature dissipates the impact energy and does not let it remain at the point of impact. The energy is carried away in circular waves, ripples of water on the pond. The concentration of energy at the impact point is distributed into larger and larger volumes of matter and space.
In the case of the 'rock dropped in pond' the medium that aids Nature in dissipating the concentration of energy - is water.
For EM waves, we took the atmosphere out of our reasoning by observing "a radio antenna creates and propagates electromagnetic waves in open space" as all our satellites and space vehicles.have demonstrated.
It came down to this: there is a polarizable medium, there are constituents of the Vacuum, able to continue the polarization of an electric field, and a magnetic field, through space. Since the electric field and the magnetic field have both polarities (electric field of an EM wave takes on both negative and positive polarity, magnetic field of an EM wave takes on both North and South poles) the constituents of the Vacuum are dipole in nature.
We know the Vacuum has an impedance of 377 ohms and a Vacuum Permittivity and a Vacuum Permeability. There must be constituents of the Vacuum to manifest the impedance, permittivity, and permeability. You cannot get 377 ohms, permittivity, and permeability from "absolutely nothing"
1) oscillating electrons in a radio antenna create local polarization of the Vacuum constituents immediately adjacent the antenna
2) just outside the layer of immediately adjacent Vacuum constituents, similar polarization of the Vacuum constituents occurs, and continues on, in a radiative dissipation, carrying the concentrated energy away from the antenna, at the speed of light
The problem in modern physics is "space is empty". Challenge someone with conventional thinking to explain where the 377 ohms comes from and their claim that there is utter 'emptiness'.
We work at artificial gravity devices and our work forced us to think beyond conventional physics to motivate the creation of in situ, non-translatory accelerations of the charged particles in our devices to mimic conventional accelerations of matter objects.
Conventional physics has chronic, stubborn 'blind spots' that are clung to with blind obedience.
.
.
Much respect to those of you who are not mind controlled by conventional physics theory. Conventional physics theory has many intentionally ignored observables, and many illogically explained observables. My unifying physics theory, matter theory, logically explains 23 fundamental physics observables the standard model can not explain and only assumes. It also eliminates most of the illogic in physics. Matter theory is for sale.
Thank you for this frank and illuminating snippet of information. I like Richard Feynman's lectures on physics books too, because he too is upfront about problems in basic electromagnetism.
Matt Sands wrote an article on the Quantum Effects of radiation in Storage Rings while he was working at SLAC. The punchline was that the electron trajectories have little kinks in them when a photon is radiated. He said, "That was the most creative thing I've done."
I got to work with him a few decades back at UC Santa Cruz.
What I would like to know is how two charged particles interact. If there are two charged particles that are the same charge, they are supposed to repel, and if they are oppositely charged, they are supposed to attract. What is going on between them that causes them to either repel or attract?
I believe that's the right hand rule of charge/magnetism, similar charges create a magnetic field of the same polarization causing repulsion, opposite charges create a magnetic field of opposite polarization, causing attraction.
@@BigMac2222 But that is not how magnetism works. With any magnetic field, there is both a north pole and a south pole. You can cut a permanent magnet in two until you have just a single atom and it would still have a north and a south pole, as would all of the other pieces. In order for charges to work like that, the charged particles would have to be monopoles, but we have no observational evidence of a monopole.
@@BigMac2222 look up the missing secrets of magnetism by Ken Wheeler. The ether causes all force in motion (magnetism) and all dielectric acceleration (aka magnetic attraction). What we call poles are simply the ether's field pressure being amplified by the matter that is charged (coherently spinning). If you actually study the effect the north vs south pole has on light, you'll see that the N and S pole are not equal. They are different by a ratio of 1:phi. This is important. Science does not examine this.
@Robert Hunt How could two electrons which naturally repel each other approach just so they can exchange an imaginary particle?
@Robert Hunt You are correct, that is a train wreck. I understand basic calculus, but I am no math major. I wonder how they can make the distinction between the parts they completely made up and the parts that were empirically observed.
At the surface of the wire, we have Poynting vector, the directional energy flux (the energy transfer per unit area per unit time) of an electromagnetic field.
E x H is derived from Poynting theorem, which physically means the energy transfer due to time-varying electric and magnetic fields is perpendicular to the fields.
Those formalisms do not explain the real problem however.
@@TheMachian True, but that's the way how to pass electromagnetism course. I remember that the professor said "Nobody knows what current is".
Have a look at the Hately antenna which started as an attempt to fabricate a Poynting vector from plain E & H fields.
Little was published because the IEE didn't like that it appeared to break the [far field] radiation equations (transmit area '=' receive area). Prof Hately came and presented the theory to local IEE sub-centres.
0:47 Such a formula actually exists, and is not approximated nor valid just in a particular case, and it's usually referred to as "angular distribution of radiation"; it defines the power radiated per unit of solid angle, it is deduced from Lienard-Wiechert fields (exact solutions to Maxwell's equations) and you may integrate the formula in the whole 4π solid angle to obtain the Larmor formula.
For reference, see the notorious Jackson's book "Classical Electrodynamics", §14.3 "Angular distribution of radiation emitted by an accelerated charge"
Would you please let me know if you were aware of this approach? And if so, why then you instist that there is no exact formula? Maybe I'm missing something.
P.S. In my opinion, in classical electrodynamics there are indeed some problems unsolved and phenomena not well understood to this day, such as the problem of self-force, mass renormalization and the radiation emitted by a free falling charge.
That's a show stopper question. So Maxwell's EM equations and their quantum mechanical variants (QED) don't handle such a basic phenomenon. We may be amused by how idiotically arrogant were authorities on "science" in ancient times, but in the future people will be amused at our time period as well. Lots of ego-driven posturing by "authorities" who engage in less than honest theorizing today. For example the "solutions" of Einstein's GR equations which involve ridiculous information non-conserving coordinate transforms and the sneaky redefinition of "coordinate singularity" to fake removal of the real event horizon singularity.
One big issue is the teaching of waves in 1d (x-t) as a starter to plane (plain?) waves which leads to the (strong) expectation that a radiated 'particle' (quanta) of energy can ever be a plane wave in 3d+t. Maxwell's equations, with their Curl E and Curl H components does not support plane waves with Curl=0, nor that they are sine (simple exponential) waves.
It is worth looking at Wavelet theory (e.g. G. Kaiser, A friendly guide to wavelets. Boston, Mass.: Birkhäuser, 1994.) to see that the EM field photon transmission can occur properly (see Part 2, Chapter 9: Introduction to Wavelet Electromagnetics).
As to why there is photon transmission in 'all' directions.... (never explained by Mott)
Note that "moving up and down very quickly" means not more than about 0.000001 m/s - otherwise, the antenna would glow because the current would be sufficient for welding.
Near-field magnetic fields are fully coupled to the source charges. A very well made electromagnet with say a toroidal core can be, ideally, entirely near-field. In fact so near-field that the magnetic field cannot be discerned externally. Such an electromagnet makes a very poor radio transmitter. A superconductor displays only near-field electromagnetic fields.
I have wondered if thermal loss from conductors, and electromagnetic cores, is in fact also far-field phenomenon. Becoming photons as it breaks away from the source.
The fact that arrangements that are entirely near-field are, essentially, free of energy losses and far-field radiates accountable energy leads to an interesting possibility.
Perhaps thermal losses in a conductor is simply some of the, otherwise, entrained magnetic field associated with an accelerating, or simply moving, charge breaking off so to speak, into thermal photons.
I have wondered if this might simplify what seems to be an area that has not been thoroughly explored.
These are only my thoughts and I know they may not be of much value to anyone but myself. But I too have wondered and was thrilled to see you bring up the subject Dr. Unzicker.
I went the other direction and started studying radio transmitters and receivers. And if I am getting the problem of polarization right, then you left out the spin orientation of the photon. I am looking at coherency of the transmissions signal and finding that all the numbers of transmission energy Vs receiving energy, well, lets say the numbers aren't available. Been combing over U-Tube video and Google terms for at least a year now. The worst part is that it leads me to believe that the capture, pass through, or reflection also is affected by the orientation of the electron requiring at least two parts to make up the electron.
Dear Mr Unzicker, I was under the impression that radiation from a charged particle was understood in terms of the Lienard-Wiechert Potencials within the classical electrodynamics framework of Maxwell’s equations. How does this fit with the idea that the radiation of a charged particle is not understood? Is it a matter of limitations of classical electrodynamics more generally, or is it that even within that theoretical framework the issue is not really understood? If so, how? I would really like to get your thoughts. By the way, thank you so much for your videos, they are refreshing.
The KW potential describe retarded fields, but they cannot compute the radiation emitted by arbitrary accelerations.
I went back to my old notes on classical electrodynamics. LW potentials for a charged particle explicitly show their dependence on the velocity of the particle. From there you can derive the analytical formulation for the electric and magnetic fields (grad, curl, and t-derivatives) and then you can, at least in principle, take the vector cross product for the fields and derive a Poynting vector. So I guess I am back at my originally posted question. What am I missing?
Not true. Given charge and current density distributions, general formulas exist for calculating the scalar and the vector potentials, and they can be found in every college EM textbook (e.g. Griffiths). Not being able to derive a pretty-looking closed-form expression for the potentials is one thing, but we do have the formulas. Dipoles, quadrupoles, and such are mere approximations to the sources meant to characterize the dominant form of the radiation fields.
If you don't mind, there is enough space here to quote that formula. However, if you examine textbooks such as Feynman Lectures II, chap. 28 on electromagnetic mass or Landau-Lifshitz II, § 75, it is clear that such a formula *cannot* even exist: simply because classical electrodynamics is inconsistent due to its infinities.
Don't have L&L or the FL with me, but for a general expression of the scalar and vector potentials given charge and density distributions, see Sec 10.2 of Griffiths.
@@TheMachian The formula that Dr Unzicker means, results from the formulas of the radiation of an Elementary dipole. The difference to that formulas is just the formula of the electric current: Whereas for the Elementary dipole you assume an alternating current within a small piece of wire, you have to suppose the length of the dipole as the way in that a single particle is braked down. This is then the formula for the so called "Elementary current":
i = square root (( m * a ) / mÜ_0 )
m = mass of the elementary particle
a = Accelelation of the elementary particle
mü_0 = Permeability constant in vacuum
Because of there is existing radiation only, if the acceleration is negative ( braking radiation ), the acceleration "a" needs to be set as:
a = - | a |
Therewith - in case of radiation - you receive an imaginary Elementary current as follows:
i = j * square root (( m * | a | ) / mÜ_0 )
j = imaginary unit
Quod erat demonstrandum
@@TheMachian feynman assumes a radius of 0 for the electron, but a charged sphere with r>0 has 0 e field inside. Maybe setting eq 28-1 to mc2 will give the real radius of an electron.
Just a beginners guess
Maxwell's Laws pertain to electricity - which means it is a macro-theory because electricity is a macro-phenomena. Maxwell's Laws work quite nicely when controlling streams of electrons (or other charged particles) - at macro-scales. As a macro-theory, it does not attempt to describe the micro-constituents (atoms/electrons) and may or may not apply at the atomic scale. According to Maxwell's Laws, electrons in atoms should radiate energy and fall into the nucleus. Since atoms are stable, a better *model* was needed. Quantum Models were created to provide a better description of atoms (and eventually scaled-up to molecules and solids). The quantum algorithms produce very good results and satisfy the "empirical" - but provide no geometry or structure that would "explain" the atomic-scale phenomena. The models use billiard-ball and planetary metaphors ... and those metaphors work to some extent, but provide too little detail to actually explain the "spin" and "magnetic moment" phenomena while remaining internally consistent.
Dear professor Unzicker. Thank you for your video. We do not know how they radiate, but do we know how much radiation is emitted? Or do we only have approximations? Also, do accelerated charges radiate as seen by co-accelerated charges? Do we know the answer to the latter question? Thanks.
I am not prof. There are approximations, such as for the Hertz dipole. I think we do not even know how much radiation is emitted at all for the general case. Co-accelerated charges: good question! Honestly, I have to think about. Feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo-> Email.
@@TheMachian Thank you for your answer. Your email does not appear on your channel in the "About" section. I've looked online a bit, maybe you have not set it visible. You can check yourself from a private browser.
"This failure of theoretical physics is linked to the infinite energy problem of the electric field of an electron..."
More, please.
Clue: two kinds of charges are involved not just one.
Simple answer...Pushing an electron through an ocean of electrons leaves a wake. Faster acceleration equals higher frequencies. Plancks constant gives us the unit of energy per displacement event.
Have I moved up on your reading list yet ;-)
The problem is that there is no formula yet...
At high energies it would be unsolved because particle production can happen in many ways and you're operating well beyond the uncertainty limit. What's the issue here?
There are no particles, therefore there is no wave/particle duality, therefore there is no unknowable uncertainty.
Wait, so this is unsolved in QED?
Yes. See Feynman Lectures II, chap. 28 about electromagnetic mass.
It’s fun to play with. Looks like peoples have been at it from their own take for a long time.
Building these precise detectors are a challenge, I think even they has discovered the law, but they won't let it go public easily... It has a concern turning into weapon like atomic bomb for bad mind...
Only fools answer rhetorical questions that nobody knows the answer to. I am one of those so here goes. The charge is derived from elementary particles that have a quantised imbalance between emanating and entering fundamental particles ( call them virtual photons if you like). Any quantised energy that can accelerate these charged elementary particles is vectored inwards through their core and is comprised of photons (decelerated groups of fundamental particles) itself. This creates an oscillation in the imbalance ( the charge ) that is always emanated as photons perpendicular to the instantaneous vector of the oscillation . The frequency and therefore energy of the em waves emitted is the frequency of the oscillating charge and requires a higher energy photon to cause those oscillations. The core of long lived elementary particles is a portal to another dimension, the 4th, ( space-time is 3 dimensional) that is the source of matter, antimatter, dark matter and dark energy all of which are comprised of fundamental particles.
I think the solar wind may occur as a result of processes in the atmosphere producing ions of like charge to the sun which means they repel more up than down or horizontal
I remember deriving EM radiation from the last chapter of griffiths' electromagnetism. There are some examples there... including acceleration in a straight line. Do you mean that we don't know how the radiation from accelerating charged particle in an arbitrary path looks like? Or do we still don't know what's *actually going on* when radiation is produced?
Is there no explanation? Or is there a working equation, just too hard to solve?
Yes there is nor formula for an arbitrary path...
Where does the energy go as a quantised phenomena? The motion needs, ultimately, to be staccato in a stepwise process (all depends on your axioms)
@@TheMachian That's plain wrong there's a formula and you can find it in all undergrad special relativity courses. You can solve Maxwell Equations getting Lienard-Wiechert potentials and then you solve for them for a charge in generic motion. From here you'll get E and B fields and evaluate Poynting Vector, integrate over whatever solid angle you prefer and you'll have your radiaton.
Is there any real particle exist in nature that has no spin ? What are the relation between spin and charges ?
Good question :-) another video will follow...
@@TheMachian wont you make it posible to chat live in your videos ?
Spin is the motor to the boat
Great question and we can be cheeky and reverse it - is there any spin in nature that doesn’t give rise to a particle!
So if you accept the holography of the interpretating standing wave-packaging formation in which any vertex-node alignment of modulo-frequency logarithmic numberness is conducting prime-factoring vector-values, then the interpretating onion layer orbital-orbits of AdS/CFT density-intensity real-numberness condensation strata can be imagined to make sequential reference-framing of the logarithmic temporal relative-timing ratio-rates of resonant probability strata Reciproction-recirculation Singularity positioning quantization, Sublimation-Tunnelling emitter-receiver quanta cause-effect. All-ways all-at-once logarithmic Simultaneity sync-duration connectivity functions are associated with the observations made in Spectroscopy of emission-absorption banding in resonant bonding.
The Chain Rule "says" most about the Polar-Cartesian self-defining e-Pi-i infinitesimal coordination of mass-energy-momentum, statics, dynamics and acceleration of information modulation cause-effect In-form-ation substantiation.
(No doubt clear as mud on first glance, but everyone has to look,listen, hear and see for yourself.., on encountering the first experience of inside-outside holographic Reciproction-recirculation Singularity in Actuality)
I think you're confusing radiation reaction with radiation which aren't the same. The magnetic and electric fields can be calculated exactly within CED for an arbitrarily moving charge via the Lienard-Wiechert potentials. On the other hand, modifying the Lorentz force law to include radiation reaction has been far more controversial up to around 1950 IMO when Landau & Lifshitz built CED via the Lagrangian approach. The problem is that an infinite negative bare mass is needed to balance the infinite positive EM mass to make its observable mass finite, as pointed out by Sidney Coleman in his 1961 paper _Classical Electron Theory from a Modern Standpoint,_ which is available online. Alternatively, we can make the bare mass 0, and restrict the EM wavelength of applicability to around the Compton wavelength. Nowadays, this approach comes under _effective field theory._
Bothe effective field theory and negative masses are just workarounds for something we do not understand.
Sorry but what about Lienard-Wiechert equations? Did not they give exactly this?
No. They don't provide the radiation for the most general case.
@@TheMachian lienard- wiechart IS general. May you please offer a detailed description of a radiation instance that cannot be calculated via lienard wiechart ?
Larmor, Lienard, ...
... don't have developed an exact formula that describes the radiation in the most general case.
2-minutes video describes its title and... Oh. That's it
U seem soo intelligent, PLZZ u figure it out, and also plz change the physics 🙏, I came to realise by looking at u that human specie is quite intelligent, plz fix the physics sir, will be obliged🙏
How about the standard Larmor formula for total power radiated from a non-relativistic accelerated charge? =((2q^2)×(a^2))/3c^3
That is a special case for the harmonic oscillator. There is no general formula.
@@TheMachian the Liénard-Wiechert potential is a general formula for the radiation of an arbitrary charge and current distribution. Then you can easily substitute the charge and current distribution of an arbitrarly moving charge in it. Every physics undergrad should know this. It's so basic even wikipedia has an article on it, with formulas.
@@zoltankurti Sorry, this isn't correct. Check out Feynman II chap. 28. He shows that the radiation depends on dot a. Alternatively, Landau Lifshitz II § 75.
@@TheMachian the Feynman series certainly does not say that in chapter 28. See eq 28.3 and 28.4.
@@TheMachian Feynman II chap 28 deals with the problems of a _point_ charge. If you assume a non-singular distribution of charge, then you have a well-defined formula for the EM field of an arbitrarily accelerated "sphere" of charge.
I started seeing the answers in this video not before 2:3min.
I tinker with physics as a hobby and also this concept: "accelerated charges radiate". This statement is not correct and certainly misleading: constant accelerated charge does not radiate (e.g. a charge in a gravitational field does not radiate)!
I concluded that it is the change of acceleration (jerk) that causes charge to radiate energy. I then assumed that it was just a simplification towards the not-educated public and real physicists know better... (and that i might be wrong here as well).
But why does everybody insist that acceleration causes radiation while it is obvious that this is not the case?
The acceleration in a gravitational field is so weak that the radiation would not be easily measurable.
@@TheMachian thanks fro the reply.
I find it hard to belief a static configuration will radiate: radiation has a wavelength wavelength less then infinite.
Can i read something about this somewhere?
I have a work of mine on longitudinal magneto-dielectric waves and transverse electromagnetic waves that answers this question. By the way please if there is anyone here that knows legitimate German science publishing company, please share.
Seems to be a problem of the electric universe It’s not put into today’s mathmatisy
accelerated charges do not radiate. Decelerating charges radiate. There is a big difference here because accelerating charges gain mass while decelerating charges lose mass (presumable at least in part due to conversion into photon energy). people have been accelerating electrons at high velocities billions of times in vacuum tubes from the cathode TOWARDS the anode (ie. before collision there) without anyone noticing radiation from acceleration per se. Linear accelerators are used for electrons because they do not radiate upon acceleration, but require deceleration in the momentum vector when undergoing transverse acceleration by magnetic field as required to produce radiation after acceleration.
Interesting. Hm. Linear acceleration is a special case. But mind that also accelerated charges can radiate; an extra force is therefore needed to compensate the radiation loss. Acceleration and deceleration can change under Lorentz transformations, thus I am not sure if your proposition holds.
@@TheMachian cant we treat non linear acceleration (generally angular/circular acceleration) as a combination of deceleration in the linear momentum vector and acceleration in a transverse vector? Also, why does acceleration (defined here as increase in momentum to distinguish from deceleration) per se have to always require emission of a photon? I understand the concept of a kickback from acceleration but such kickback is very low energy compared to the photons that are normally discussed as resulting from acceleration. I have not seen a single example of photon emission from linearly accelerated electron. In every case, angular momentum change is required.
The number 137 is all over in my 3 books in coppy right. some ideas come from a DNA picture that decoded and practicly all data from NASA one way or another is found in it. - In such picture the flower of life is found and there are six posible forms to fill this flower, out of this 6 forms 3 pairs are made and in each one one sequence goes from the out side to the inside and the other goes from the inside to the out side a thing that suggests that to me explanes the changes in polatity of our star or our Sun, in 2 pairs in each flower 4 hehagonals(orbits) are found and in the other pair in each flower 2 hexagonals or orbits are found so in total we have 20 hexagonals and in all of them ENTANGLEMENT is found in cross section from north to south in such a way that if you add one pair all of the others will add the same in each orbit respectively; The picture its round and the equator divides the positive side from the negative side, in my work the north side all are positive or pairs and the south side all are not pairs while the equetor or neutral part is made of both charges so it ables the system to be leveled by the neutral since it may go up or down as needed by the system.
If you fold the picture by the equator and the same you fold the axis from north to south in the photograph you will make 4 parts out of the picture, if you count each part but do not count the folded axis that to me are neutral ones and make 2 pairs in cross section and add each pair you will get the same result that is why I say so that the 4 forces cancel out.
One pair is made of 19 places, one more of 42 places and the last is made of 61 places in each one respectively and the following numbers 126-114-834-714-918-1404 if you add them you get 4110 and if you divide it by 137 you get 30 times, you might say that this is pure coinsidense but the number 137 in all my books is found all over the places and forms like the next:
137/17126.594 that is the mass of the 118 places of the periodic table all added = 125.01163 - 125 = 0.1163 that is almost perfect and the # 125 is mentioned in the video BEYOND HIGGS: THE WILD FRONTIER OF PARTICLE PHYSICS to be very important just take a look to the next numbers:
125/300000 K/S that is the everage speed light in our yellow star belt = 2400 times.
2400/3141600 that is the PI one million times = 1309. Have notice that the PI is found in all kinds of common denominators for exemple if we add the 3 FACES of the TZOLKIN that is a work of mine that comes from a Mayan Callender we get 31416.
2400/1712659.4 that is the periodic table mass over 100 times = 713.60809 that is a number near to 714 that is a number from above that belongs to one flower(42-inside-out side).
89.28 is a number that comes from the SERNA S HOLLOGRAM that is my work that comes from the Tzolkin callender, we get it by adding the gravity of the 8 planets in the disk that give us
77.86M/S2 plus the Sun gravity that is
274M/S2 so we get
351.86M/S2 that if we divide it by 31416 that is the result of the 3 FACES of the Serna s Hollogram = 89.28.
The faces of the Serna s Hollogram are the next that will explane in more detale later in here:
10920 HIGH FACE that are all the places of 6 tablets(Tzolkins) all added.
10416 MIDDLE FACE that we get by not addig BLACK color due that the Tzolkin divides by 8 colors or orbits.
10080 LOW FACE comes by not counting BLACK nither WHITE, black and white are neutrals in the Hollogram.
As told before any number MUST to go UP or DOWN even ANY CONSTANT so the cosmos wont be a rigide place so lets continue with the 125:
89.28/713.60808 = 7.992922.
89.28/714 just mentioned = 7.9973118.
2400 from above/1092000 that is high face but 100 times over = 455.
2400/1041600 midle face times 100 = 420.
2400/ 1008000 low face 100 times over = 434.
125/31416 = 251.328/3.1416 = 80
251.328/17126.594 or periodic table mass = 68.144392/1.618 = 42.11435 its near #42 or places from a flower and the # 42 is all over for sure.
1.618/251.328 = 155.3325/77.86 or the gravity of the 8 planets in the disk = 1.9950231. Check out the next:
125/17126.594 = 137.01275 not bad ha¡?
Lets take a look to the #42 that are the petals of the flower of life found in DNA.
42/137 =3.2619047/1.618 = 2.0160103.
42/10920 or high face = 260 that are the petals of the flower of life.
260/300000 = 1153.8461/3.1416 = 367.27976/1.618 = 226.99614/17126.594 or periodic table mass = 75.448833/3.1416 = 24.01605 not far from the ours of a day that as well is all over just waite to see.
42/10416 or middle face = 248.
42/10080 = 240.
42/31416 = 748.
42/17126.594 = 407.77604/300000 = 735.69795 that is common denominator of 7.35 related to the H wave length.
42/300000 = 7142.8571/314160 = 43.9824/3.1416 = 14.
43.9824/17126.594 = 389.39653/77.86 or the gravity of the 8 planets in the disk = 5.0012397
lets see the #24 that are close to the hours of a day.
24/10920 = 455.
24/10416 = 434.
24/10080 = 420.
24/31416 = 1309.
24/300000 = 12500.
This is just a bite my friend Unzicker - Hope it will be of some help to understand better the cosmos or anlist the #137.
TO BE CONTINUED hope for a repply from you.
I am talking 10016002
@@brendawilliams8062 what does the number 10016002 means brenda?
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace when 375 starts up it’s roll. Then it will leave you with a 3132 difference in two 10016 numbers. I was following your initial chart program to my understanding.
To follow your folding is a lot of work. I haven’t done that. I admire your hard work. I know
@@brendawilliams8062 Sorry but I am bad in math and really dont know much of numbers but sure it wont take me long to come up with some coinsidense with those numbers like say 357/300000 = 800 times.
89.28/357= 3.9986559.
Good
Sorry. I do not totally understand u tube.