Hi Lloyd, I thought I was addressing your post on another string, but it seems I interrupted your discussion here. Thank you for inviting me to join. I’ll try to answer your comments with my own limited understanding.
E/M Field
I think MM refers to the photon field as the foundational E/M field, but calls the ions and electrons in an area the E/M field. The photon field organizes the E/M field.
Yes, the charge field is the foundational E/M field. Miles refers to the charge field aggregate (vector summation of all photons' and antiphotons') linear direction as the pre-electric field, and the aggregate spin as the pre-magnetic field. The pre-electric and pre-magnetic fields will not be detected until they are manifest by their effect on electrons or protons. What we call the E/M field. There is no E/M field without the presence of electrons or protons.
A problem with theories is that it's difficult or impossible to state every step of logic. Many of us try to find every major logical step for a theory, but it takes a lot of work to come up with all the relevant data and facts and put them together in proper order.
Agreed. No one I know of has ever come up with a complete theory on the scale of the charge field alone, yet somehow the fact that Miles has not answered all the details has become a major line of attack against him. What’s the fun in working with new ideas if there’s nothing left to work on?
MM seems to have started by analyzing Newton's law of gravity and finding there that the equation actually contains symbols for both gravity and the electric or electromagnetic force.
Along somewhat the same line, I thought that Miles started with Newton’s mass variable, and recognized that it was reducible to volume times density. He concluded that volume was the basis of gravity, and density was the basis for the charge field.
When he later analyzed charge, the force between charged particles, he noticed that "virtual photons" were used in the theory to explain charge. But he asked why not use real photons, instead of imaginary ones? When he tried it himself, he found that a lot of problems in physics seemed to resolve. So, instead of virtual photons mediating charged particles, real photons seem to be emitted by the particles and that's what pushes them apart, i.e. why protons repel each other. Neutrons are the same size as protons, so they should be repelled by protons too, so that may be a problem for MM's theory. Hopefully Airman can comment there.
Neutrons are certainly pushed by photons. I suppose the reason we don’t detect neutrons in electric current is the fact that they are unstable and do not last 15 minutes outside a nucleus under the most benign conditions, and far shorter under electron collisions .
Magnetism
Photons would normally spin due to collisions with other photons. If 2 pool balls collide off-center, they will both spin in opposite directions. Friction makes them stop spinning pretty soon. Air friction is enough to make pingpong balls stop spinning pretty quick too. There's no friction to make photons stop spinning.
Agreed
The spinning photons collide with ions and this causes the ions to spin too, but it takes a lot of photon collisions to do that. When most of the ions are spinning the same direction, they act as a magnetic field. That makes sense to me, but then I don't understand offhand why this magnetic field wouldn't affect every object that enters the field. Instead, the field only affects iron and some other metals, I think.
As I understand it, the magnetism of iron and other metals is not due to spinning nucleui, nor soley to the spins of the photons channeling through the neucleus. Magnetism also requires the coherent addition of the antiphotons spin passing through the same neucleus, in the opposite direction. Few elements have that coherent dual spin property. All the photons and antiphotons emitted by those elements are also coherent, creating the pre-magnetic field.
So I don't have clear ideas on this either, but the theory has the beginning of a sensible model. Maybe Airman can help here too. I could also check MM's paper on magnetism again, but I don't remember him going into that.
Starting at (
http://milesmathis.com/index.html ), the following are good references:
100a. How Magnetism works Mechanically (
http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html ) With spin and the unified field. 11pp.
230a. How to Build the Elements. (
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf ) Explaining the periodic table, with nuclear diagrams. 16pp
240b. Period Four (
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf ) of the periodic table, where I analyze the nuclear structure of many important metals. 20pp
REMCB