[General] Electrons through the looking glass

[David Mathes]

John
In investigating electron and photon models as well as various sources of evidence from accelerators and lasers, We may find it useful to ask questions, and perhaps make sure we have exhaustedly done so to ensure papers have a rigor expected by the audiences the paper or presentation is aimed at.
So, I am going to provide a stream of consciousness that tries to stay within the banks and boundaries with occasional overflows and tangental thought. 
Sometime ago I began an attempt to compare various photon models  and likewise, electrons models. My interest was primarily advanced and exotic propulsion systems so the usual suspects of solar sails and fusion drives were explored at the particle process level. As a part of my process, it was important to know the mainstream physics as well as the anomalies and evidence that didn't fit those models. I wasn't looking for a complete solution; I was simply gleaning ideas by looking at experiments without a good theory that appeared as magic as well as theories without even the whiff of an experimental approach. Lots of ideas and little progress results unless to obtain clean wheat one changes the filters early and often.
Even within the mainstream physics I found it incredible that Planck units were being used. The very idea of Planck mass seemed inane since Planck units are not a closed set. However, I decided that Planck's constant would be left alone for now.
Zbw was always a hangup in part for lack of belief in any evidence of zbw as well as zbw itself due to schroedinger and Dirac's choice of equations. Perhaps these non-believers have a preference for the simpler models of life and learning, and in doing so, may have oversimplified the electron and lost sight of why Dirac and Schroedinger's equations and observations work.
A few years ago, NIST in the US gave Direct observation of zitterbewegung in a Bose-Einstein condensate. That has not prevented folks from believing in other models but certainly has focused the light on zbw models of the electron.
See also http://jqi.umd.edu/news/simulation-sets-atoms-shivering  So we will assume that all electron models are zbw models unless otherwise noted.
One could argue there are many other defining factors in the case of the electron, the most obvious being charge. 
One might argue charge to mass ratio as well but that ratio is not fundamental while charge is fundamental and quantized - or so we thought until quarks changed that view. So we have leptons and quarks all exhibiting charge. And then we have the carriers, most notably the photon.
Mass is not fundamental. At least I don't think so. I like to consider it a phase or state change in the energy density continuum. Basic unit, but not really fundamental.
So how does a photon with zero charge (?) become an electron with charge? What is the *process*?
Will any photon do? or is it limited to a range? 
And if we use part of a photon, are the leftovers from electron creation also photons, or are they some other byproduct?
A photon traversing the universe is assumed to travel in a straight line, a geodesic if you will. Now, any mass or energy density along that path might change that line ever so slightly. And we can ignore for now any absorption or emission such as stimulated and spontaneous. 
So, if we assume that a photon on a tightly curved path generates charge, how does it do that? 
An off-geodesic perhaps? An emergence property? (reductionism freedom)?
The photon itself is poorly represented in books of learning. The electric and magnetic vectors of a photon are often drawn with their source on the centerline like that of an auger. However, photons are more like a corkscrew with an offset from that centerline. 
Either case is puzzling. In the auger-type photon, the Poynting Vector is simplified and we have an apparent imbalance that traverses space like a soliton. In the corkscrew approach, there emerges something we don't have real experience with and begin to guess that spacetime is interacting with the E and B fields. One could go even further and suggest that various types of impedance (paging Chip) need to be accounted for. Another possibility is that even within a vacuum the photon is interacting with other particles. After all, a vacuum is not a void. 
Is the traveling photon influenced by the rest of the universe? Given the impedance question, and  Mach's principle, and perhaps the photon really is defined by the universe, the vacuum and spacetime. How are these three related?
So now we have the additional issues of spacetime, possible negative vacuum , and Mach's principle.
Even within the photon, in either model - the auger or corkscrew - there is the issue of degrees of freedom, in particular the line of travel (Poynting vector) as well as transverse. The transverse nature of a curving photon would suggest the possibility of emergent forces.
So the zbw-electron models appear to have a circulating quanta which we think is the photon, and that photon appears to be generating topological charge as it interacts with spacetime and perhaps particles within the vacuum. 
So we have to ask...is the photon in the electron the same as the photon outside the electron?
David
 


      From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
 To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Cc: Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> 
 Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 10:51 PM
 Subject: RE: [General] Electrons through the looking glass
   
 #yiv2832913281 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv2832913281 #yiv2832913281 -- filtered {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv2832913281 p.yiv2832913281MsoNormal, #yiv2832913281 li.yiv2832913281MsoNormal, #yiv2832913281 div.yiv2832913281MsoNormal {margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2832913281 a:link, #yiv2832913281  span.yiv2832913281MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2832913281 a:visited, #yiv2832913281 span.yiv2832913281MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2832913281 filtered {margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}#yiv2832913281 div.yiv2832913281Section1 {}#yiv2832913281 #yiv2832913281 BODY {}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.natureoflightandparticles.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>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <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> 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=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> 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>
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Andrew Meulenberg <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> 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 pagesPenning traps as a versatile tool for precise experiments in fundamental physics K. Blaum, Yu.N. Novikov and G. Werthhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.1095.pdf In Above paper ref [6]1986 Penning Trap,  77 pagesGeonium theory: Physics of a Single Electron or Ion in a Penning TrapBrown, Gabrielsehttp://gabrielse.physics.harvard.edu/gabrielse/papers/1986/Review.pdf  On the Radius of the Neutron, Proton, Electron and the Atomic NucleusSha YinYuehttp://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/yue.pdf  Molecular superpositionhttp://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 Schinkehttp://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample03.pdf   Combined Quantum Mechanical and Molecular Mechanical PotentialsPatricia Amara and Martin J. Field http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample04.pdf 
From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Andrew Meulenberg <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> 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 atmules333 at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=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 atdmath777 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/dmath777%40yahoo.com?unsub=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/20150415/1f714dda/attachment-0001.htm>