[General] Electrons through the looking glass

Wed Apr 15 11:11:49 PDT 2015

Dear John W,

time for a couple comments below:

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:21 AM, John Williamson <
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

>   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 never did publish it and, since I am a Cold Fusion author, anything I
submit to arXiv is automatically rejected or scrutinized very closely for
rejection of any non-standard physics. I have not had time yet to update it
and try a European journal.

I will be presenting a version of it to the upcoming Nature of Light conf.
(see abstract). Any suggestions or comments before I start putting it
together are welcome.

>
>
> 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/
>

You mentioned being "worried about the dynamics of electrons..." I became a
believer in stochastic electrodynamics when I thought about how an
s-orbital electron radiates (see my subsequent paper on virtual vs real
photons from the 2011 conference, attached). Any physicist who believes the
line that such a source can be represented by a simple harmonic oscillator
should turn in his badge. Unfortunately, Feynman taught just that.

I believe that the dark energy of space is simply the non-photonic
Maxwellian radiation. It provides the impedance of space. These random EM
fluctuations feed, and are fed from, all of the atomic electrons (and
perhaps any other electrons) in the universe, past, present, and future. QM
claims the existence of Quantum Foam, but provides no physical basis for it
(but it does claim that electron and positron pairs of any energies are
constantly 'popping' in and out for a quick nip). If the real basis is
classical, it is not likely to ever get published.

Andrew
___________________________

>
>
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150415/d96600ee/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: long abstract_ Photon to lepton-pair transition.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 119034 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150415/d96600ee/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: virtual vs real photons 7 ltr 8121-38.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 504086 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150415/d96600ee/attachment-0003.pdf>