[General] Electrons through the looking glass

Wed Apr 15 04:38:49 PDT 2015

Hi John W

Hoping to help you with simulations.  Looking forward to it. Still have a
ways to go to fully understand and code the geometric algebra library in a
fashion which allows us to try the variations in computational structure
while modeling.  

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:52 AM
To: David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Electrons through the looking glass

Dear Andrew and David,

Thank you very much for your paper Andrew and posts David.  The reading of
them has been a rare treat in the early hours of a Wednesday morning.  I
usually tell my second year students to be wary of Wikipedia as it starts to
become unreliable (representing "common knowledge" as it does) at their
level. The posts, however, were funny and apposite in turn and definitely
not tbs (too bloody serious). It was a good overview of the state of the
game in many areas and I learnt one or two things from them. Thanks for
picking them up! E-p annihilation is not quite "through the looking glass"
(but almost).

Andrew, it was wonderful to see that someone else has worried about the
dynamics of e-p annihilation. Beautiful article - well argued. Did it ever
get published? This kind of consideration should be central to our meeting
in San Diego as it addresses directly the transition from light to matter
and vice versa.

I think that it is, indeed, no co-incidence that one ends up finding the
classical radius is important. There is a relationship of precisely alpha
squared between the Bohr radius and the classical radius, with the Compton
wavelength coming in at the logarithmic centre (radius within a factor of 2
pi). Apart from the crucial questions asked in the article itself, the
conversation between you both raises many important issues - too many to
cover in a short email - but I will try to comment on and make some progress
on some of them.

Firstly (even though this is outside the theme of these posts a little),
quarks, gluons and the quark charge. It is common knowledge that the quark
charge is fractional - but this is just the simplest model (Proton charge =
2/3+2/3 - 1/3). An alternative is to use Han-Nambu quarks which carry
integral charge, but whose charge differs for different colour (gluon)
charges, (Proton charge = +1 +1 -1). Actual measurements of the quark charge
(one of the subjects of my PhD thesis) remain inconclusive. In fact direct
measurements of the very existence of quarks is inconclusive to say the
least (as energy increases the percentage of the apparent energy carried by
the valence quarks is tending towards zero - Martin may say something about
this in SD). There are extant (and unexplained) experiments which flatly
contradict the quark-parton model (O'Fallon et al PRL 1977!). 

Forget about quarks and gluons- we have to do better. We need a theory that
treats both leptons and photons as integral elements of an underlying
paradigm. Naturally I'm hoping that my new theory of electromagnetism will
allow the calculation of the detailed transition from leptons to photons
within a single unified theory, but that remains to be seen. Hoping people
such as Chip can help here!

Simple models of the proton as a bag of quarks yield proton radii in the
right ballpark. John M, for example, has an estimate in his longer paper
where he assumes equipartition of energy to three valence quarks in a bag
which comes in at the right order. There are claims of doing much better
than this using ZPE (zero point energy) calculations- especially in
explaining the recent "proton size puzzle". The precision claimed here is
impressive. See, for example.

http://resonance.is/the-proton-radius-prediction-and-gravitational-control/

I have tended to dismiss the ZPE stuff in the past as just being a
simple-minded interpretation of Copenhagen-level quantum mechanics - but I
could be very wrong here. This remains to be seen. It anyway has little
impact on the electron-photon debate as fields are (as Chandra, for example,
is arguing) very linear for practical energies. See, e.g. .

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/searching-for-a-quantum-foam-bubbling
-through-the-universe/

Even so, for me this is not the main issue. It is the question of charge
quantization in elementary particles per-se, and the underlying reasons for
the existence of the eightfold-way (quark) symmetry at all in hadrons. 

For me the reason for the quantisation of charge is precisely that only
existing (charged) particles can emit or absorb photons. The quantization
arises, then, because particles exist in a state of (thermodynamic)
equilibrium with the other particles around them. A higher charge simply
emits faster. In a hydrogen atom (or positronium) the vast majority of
interactions are between the resonant bound pair - making such things
beautifully, smoothly, neutral. Free charges may have, however, some
effective spread in charge - and this may prove one experimental test of the
new theory.

For me the quark symmetry is just geometric, as explained in my talk at
Cybcom 2008 which Nick has posted. Quarks do not exist independently because
they are not complete particles. A complete, resonant, harmonic path is
required to give a particle. Such considerations generate the mass spectrum
of particles as well, with the muon coming in at 6 cubed and the tauon at 15
cubed the mass of the electron. My old (1981!) model also gives simple
relations between baryon masses (but it is a bit of a silly model). Have not
really pursued this in decades, but it may be time to look into this again.

Coming back to e-p annihilation, what is cancelled, and the field pattern.
For me, the fields of the electron and positron are not cancelled, but
simply transform smoothly into the di-photon field pattern. The first person
to show me how to do this was my old friend Ariane Mandray. She did her PhD
in Grenoble, but is no longer active in physics, which is a shame. I think
my visual imagination is somewhat above the population average, but she is
way beyond me: she has the cleverest visual imagination I have ever
encountered. I'll copy her in on this. Take two of Martin and my roly-poly
leptons, one electron with field inwards and one positron with field
outwards. Represent them as two donuts and lay them both on a flat table.
Set the internal spins to have The SAME handedness but opposite
(instantaneous) spins. As the two field patterns merge, they converge to two
linear, corkscrew-like configurations - the proto di-photon pair. Ariane did
this, lying in front of a fire, in her head, within a few minutes, powered
only by a couple of (small) glasses of wine. Wow!

Coming back to sizes and so forth. The electron size is not of the order of
a tenth of a picometre as in the roly-poly photon model. It is a lot smaller
(though not, for me, Plank-scale small). This is because it only has itself
to oscillate about. The effective size in free space is close to the
classical electron radius - modulo a force-balance as David was arguing
(anything obeying the Maxwell equations satisfies a general force-balance
equation. No need for extra stresses). The radius of curvature of the
internal photon path is of the order of a tenth of a picometre, but that is
not the same thing as one measures as this radius is not in space-space, but
in scalar-field space. This will probably make little sense to most at the
moment . It needs the paper I'm thinking of writing when I stop writing this
email. The oscillation may be viewed as being of the field part about the
rest-mass part. The rest-mass part is - just as Andrew was arguing in his
paper - the bit that is annihilated to field in e-p annihilation. It is, for
the simplest model within the new theory, a quarter of the total
mass-energy. I would love someone to model this process in the new theory.
Chip?

Cheers, 

John W.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:41 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: [General] Forgiven

Chip

Whatever your intent, you're forgiven.

David

  _____  

From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> >
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> > 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision

Chip,

I had noticed that David had sent me email at my address, not the conference
website. I apparently had missed that before; but, assuming it was an
oversight on his part, I included it this time.

Andrew

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:

A question regarding email circulation.

It has come to my attention that I am not getting some of the comments from
various participants.  Specifically I do not receive comments from David
Mathes in this thread.  Is there a known reason this might be happening? 

David has been a continual inspiration to me over the years we have known
each other and I would prefer not to miss his contributions of possible.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins
<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ] On Behalf Of Andrew
Meulenberg
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:50 PM
To: David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew
Meulenberg

Subject: Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision

Dear David,

I have attached the draft of a paper of mine that AJP rejected in 9 minutes
back in Dec. 2012. It describes the change in mass as the electron-positron
pair approach and annihilate. This is an example of how the Coulomb
potential energy and mass are equivalent. 

For self-attractive, equal-mass, charges, The work done to accelerate the
leptons comes from their charge (their mass) and goes into bound EM
radiation (the relativistic mass increase). The figure on p 12 shows how the
decrease in potential-dependent mass as they approach exactly balances the
increase in relativistic mass so that the 'DC' charge and mass of the
leptons is 'gradually' (not quantum mechanically) converted into AC EM
fields (ultimately photons).

Based on this paper, I would extrapolate the results to 3 cases (I would
need to think them thru further):

1.  In the quark model a highly relativistic lepton triplet has been pushed
close enough together to convert almost of their energy into EM field
(perhaps with the highest energy density in the present universe). The
potential-dependent mass and charge is reduced to some resonant-state level
with the net fractional charge.

2.  In the case of a very-energetic electron incident on a nucleus, the
electron does little work and therefore does not lose potential-dependent
mass and charge. Such an electron is 'pancaked' in the direction of motion
and has a much higher central energy density than when at rest. (Its average
size decreases.) As it speeds up (incrementally, because it is already close
to c) on its approach, its relativistic EM mass increases further. This
effect would be unnoticeable because the increase is such a small percentage
of its initial energy.

3.  In the case of a very-energetic electron colliding with another such,
the electrons do work on each other; therefore, in slowing down, they gain
potential-dependent mass and charge (they can create more lepton pairs?). As
they slow down in doing this work, their relativistic-EM mass decreases and
their 'core' begins to expand back toward its rest size.

Details still need to be worked out. Nevertheless, I think that all of the
forces (strong, weak, EM, and gravitation) can be explained in this process.

Andrew

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:20 PM, David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> > wrote:

Andrew

At the photon and electron level, the L-J potential is a mathematical
physics approach to at least satisfy one element of a Monte Carlo analysis
to discern the limit, and if possible, eliminate the balance of forces
argument. After all, the photon is considered it's own anti-particle.

The dynamic dipole as a rotating dipole is based on the idea that a moving
charge creates a virtual particle  which may include the particle wake
itself. There may be other modes beyond rotating dipole...this depends on
the structure of the photon and electron as well as it's wake.

The rotating dipole may be totally real where there are two quanta, but I
was speaking of a single quanta. The concept of electronic holes has
produced major advances in electronics. So one has to ask if every
elementary particle has a hole counterpart, and at least under what
circumstances it might or might not. So when a single particle is moving
quickly perhaps in relativistic velocities or changes velocity quickly
during acceleration, or perhaps even during jerk, then frame dragging may
induce a virtual particle condition akin to a dipole traversing the path.

As I barely grasped the fractional charge explanation I certainly would like
to hear more on that since I believe SPIE is interested in "charged photon"
theory (Gauthier 2015) and how this might apply to constructing charge
particles which includes both lepton and quark families, and perhaps even
Higgs.

Best

David

  _____  

From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> >
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> >;
Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:48 AM

Subject: Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision

Dear David,

Thank you for your musings. They have raised issues that I have not
addressed, but need to.

While I do not believe that the L-J potential can pertain to the structure
of the electron, it might be applicable, in some form, to the quarks. On the
other hand, the question of balance between the repulsive and attractive
forces within the electron could be addressed in a similar manner. However,
I cannot do it w/o resorting to 4-D.

On my initial reading of your comments, I rejected the rotating-dipole
concept. I realize now that was a mistake. The source photon certainly has
dipoles built in, and the resultant lepton pair is a dipole; therefore it
should be expected that, in the conversion from oscillating dipoles to
vortex motion, the dipole nature should be dynamic. Nevertheless, just as
the standing-wave charge-dipole oscillations of a photon are in time, rather
than space, so their 'rectification' into the stable electron-positron pair
probably separates them in time as well as in space.

I believe that the fractional charge on the quarks are related to the
proximity of the constituent electrons and positrons. If the quark is a
lepton triplet, then they must be very close together and highly
relativistic. As such, their individual DC charges are converted to bound AC
fields (Gluons?). This goes way beyond the photon-to-electron concept of
present concern; but, it all fits.

Andrew

________________________________

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:01 AM, David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> > wrote:

Andrew

In the simplest form, let me explain my brain fart...based on Lenard-Jones
potential...

for an isolated particle, charged or not, there is a balance of positive
potential and negative potential for charge. 

While LJ12 applies for neutral particles at the atom or molecular level, in
principle this dipole may also apply and be useful at the elementary
particle level, at least as a starting point. This conjecture may apply to
elementary particles such as electrons and quarks as well as complex
particles such as protons and neutrons.

The rest of the email are musings. 

David

P.S. The boson family is problematic. The photon and the eight gluons
present a challenge with modeling. 

I think there is great confusion on the radius of the electron and other
elementary particles. Today's discussion Sunday/Monday April 12/13) was
making process on identifying the various radii. So I'm pretty sure this
issue will resolve itself shortly. So, my email of last week is a bit
outdated, but my concern was that when we get into topological models of
electrons with one loop or two, there is the need to identify what types of
radii there may per particle per measurement. If various theories propose a
quanta within a radius making these loops, then we need to determine if the
loops are truly circular orbital instead of elliptical, and also if we are
looking at a sub elementary quanta that exhibits classical, relativistic or
quantum behavior, and perhaps even address transluminal/superluminal issues.

I was addressing the single elementary particle level in The Standard Model
where some authors suggest that each of the individual elementary particles
have a balance of forces, attractive, the other repulsive. Near and far
field forces need to be distinguished as well. Furthermore, we need to
understand the role of measurement in determining these forces, and what
boundary conditions may be applied to discern the right answer(s). 

One could easily use the neutron. However, protons, electrons and even
massless particles like photons are often defined by a balance of forces
where the net field goes to zero. 

Net field = 0 =  f(ext) + (-f(int))

So it seems to me that any loop model will need to be evaluated as a
rotating dipole.

In the proposed neutron model, we know that during decay a neutron can
produce a proton, electron and some remnants of both mass and energy. 

When one gets to the point of a neutron decay, the current topological
models of electron seem to ignore the challenge of a quark with 1/3 the
charge.  When any attempt to apply what is learned from the electron is made
to a proton, there is a need for quark model. However, given that a proton
is comprised of  3 quarks and their attendant gluons, making the leap from
electron to proton requires models for both known quarks (6 plus variants)
and gluons (8 known). While the antiparticle is expected to be simple, the
gluons become an issue. 

In the case of the electron, there may be a need to exclude other charged
particles especially from the quark family. To my knowledge quark internals
or topology has not been detailed or even investigated. Even speculation is
rather thin on what the quark structure looks like.

So when we speak of photon - electron modeling, we probably should be
addressing photon/electron/quark modeling, and in doing so, also take on
neutrinos and gluons. While this completes the picture for most charged
particles, the remaining boson and Higgs particles will have to wait since
uncharged particles may prove even more challenging since they cannot be
measured in a Penning Trap as charged particles and ions can.

Mesoscopic physics gives us a system level view of a variety of forces
beyond just charge. Such a view will complicate the discussion intended by
SPIE. However, any internals of an Elementary Particle will need to address
externals as well beyond photon and electron to the proton and neutron.

The physics of the photon needs a bit deeper explanation as well. Is the
dipole modeling sufficient or do we need to model using cross polarized
photons and hidden variables from quarks such as spacetime impedance? Note
that there are a number of different impedances to choose from.

How does one create 1/3 charge?

DM

References

2009 Penning Trap , 78 pages

Penning traps as a versatile tool for precise experiments in fundamental
physics 

K. Blaum, Yu.N. Novikov and G. Werth

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.1095.pdf

In Above paper ref [6]1986 Penning Trap,  77 pages

Geonium theory: Physics of a Single Electron or Ion in a Penning Trap

Brown, Gabrielse

http://gabrielse.physics.harvard.edu/gabrielse/papers/1986/Review.pdf

On the Radius of the Neutron, Proton, Electron and the Atomic Nucleus 

Sha YinYue

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/yue.pdf 

Molecular superposition

http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample01.pdf

Atoms in Molecules Richard F. W. Bader 

http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample02.pdf

Photodissociation Dynamics Reinhard Schinke

http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample03.pdf 

Combined Quantum Mechanical and Molecular Mechanical Potentials

Patricia Amara and Martin J. Field 

http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample04.pdf

  _____  

From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> >
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> >;
Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> > 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 7:11 PM

Subject: Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision

Dear David,

Are you referring to the point outside a neutron where the net field goes to
zero? Or are you talking about the point between two like charges where
there is no net force on a 3rd charge? Could you be more specific? I think
that I may be missing something.

Andrew
______________________

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:26 AM, David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> > wrote:

Andrew

There is a fourth definition. That is the neutral point between attractive
and repulsive forces.

David

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at dmath777 at yahoo.com
<mailto:dmath777 at yahoo.com> 
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/dmath777%40yahoo.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/dmath777%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150415/aa10d807/attachment-0001.htm>