[General] Electrons through the looking glass

[Andrew Meulenberg]

David,

The diversity of the group backgrounds certainly adds richness to the
views. I suspect that your familiarity with the vortex theories, among
other things, is to be important. Comments below.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:57 AM, David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Andrew
>
> The questions are posed to bring in a number of conceptual ideas. Vetting
> can be done by math and experiment.
>
> I hadn't thought or explored the electron internals under the various
> vortex theories.  From the vortex tubes used in cooling to the vortex on
> a plane there are variants to consider and narrow the field. I am
> familiar with the US-Russian split on vortex theory with the general US
> view that vortex is not an additional force while the Russians prefer to
> think of vortices as an additional force.
>
> In viewing electron models from both van der Mark/Williamson and Gauthier,
> i was thinking of how charge could be explained and if that explanation
> would be continuous or quantized, or perhaps exhibit characteristics of
> both.
>
> If we take the photon in the electron model with a 3D path, is charge a
> frictional result with whatever conditions exist on the exterior?
>

I believe that things are free of friction at that level.

>
> A clue is found in the summary of Dirac's 1938 paper "Classical Theory of
> Radiating Electrons", Dirac makes a rather bold statement :
>
> "The equations obtained are the same as those already in current use, but
> in their physical interpretation the finite size of the electron
> reappears in a new sense, the interior of the electron being a region of
> space through which *signals can be transmitted faster than light*."
>

If the electron is a bound photon, then it is a standing wave and
information/energy can be transmitted much faster than at the speed of
light (it is now only a phase shift). I have never heard that expressed,
even in this group. If you have heard the concept, I would welcome a
reference.

>
> If we look in the body of Dirac's paper, after a discussion of causality
> and the coupling of radiation with acceleration, we find this clarification
> suggesting a departure from relativity. Note that current thinking on
> radiation suggests jerk/jolt may be involved.
>
> "The finite size of the electron now reappears in a new sense, the
> interior of the electron being a region of failure not of the field
> equations of electromagnetic equations, but of some the elementary
> properties of spacetime."
>

There is no failure, if the electron is a photon. However, the nature of a
photon must be better understood.

>
> Key conditions are charge invariance and GRT/SRT is preserved inside the
> electron and outside the electron.
>
> What is the nature of the Dirac departure? The usual suspects today would
> include the following:
>
> 1) Directional absorption and re-emission (unlikely and adds more time to
> traversing)
> 2) Action at a distance process (unknown)
> 3a) Impedance change (no quarks in electron volume - charge exclusion
> principle)
> 3b) Negative vacuum conditions c^2 = (e u)^-1 where e and/or u is lower
> permitting (Variant of 1)
> 4) Change in conditioning of photon using SU(n)
> 5) Asymptotic freedom (requires QCD approach)
> 6) 5D or higher solution where GRT is a subset (too complex)
> 7) Vortex theories on spacetime, photon wake, charge wake, quanta that
> defines photon, etc.
> 8) TBD
>

I would suggest that #8 becomes "Since the electron is a doubly-resonant
bound photon, then all of the key conditions are met by its covariance."

>
> If there is a photon on the interior of the electron, and that photon is
> charged, then other charged particles may be excluded such as quarks.
> However, an uncharged photon would not be excluded. Other particles TBD.
>

I believe the electron & positrons to be the smallest charged particles.

Andrew

>
> The exclusion of quarks in the interior of the electron volume may create
> a change in permittivity and perhaps permeability. The net result should be
> that spacetime internally to the electron volume is a negative vacuum
> (lower than zero vacuum)... and we haven't even addressed any direct
> contributions from vortex.
>
> Even though the actual c value is different on the interior of the
> electron, GRT/SRT works in the interior of the electron, and in the
> exterior of the electron and not so well in the transition between these
> two GRT states at least under current theory since there is at least a
> gradient although other issues such as charge divergence and the loop path
> zone may also be in play. This suggests a 5D theory might address the
> transition zone or perhaps a theory of nested theories...
>
> Best Regards
>
> David
>
>
> ------------------------------
>  *From:* Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
> *To:* David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and
> Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg <
> mules333 at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:55 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electrons through the looking glass
>
> Dear David,
>
> I have long considered that the signature of a good physicist is the
> ability to ask good questions. You do that. If you don't mind, I will turn
> some of your questions into statements for our questionnaire to determine
> the various positions of the group. Most of us have positions relative to
> the possible answers.
>
> Your last question is one that I have not previously addressed and is very
> important: "...is the photon in the electron the same as the photon outside
> the electron?"
>
> In trying to 'picture' the answer, I think of the falaco soliton and the
> production of coupled vortex pairs from a paddle moving thru the water. To
> me this is a basis for the formation of the electron-positron pair from a
> photon. However, in looking closer at the analogy I would like to improve
> the simulation. The result of water (e.g., in a stream) moving past a
> stationary paddle is not the same as waves on a lake moving past the
> stationary paddle.
>
> Has anyone seen such a simulation?
>
> Few of the water molecules are moving along with the wave! So any vortices
> formed are not the same as with the stream flow. Most of the water
> molecules in the wave flow back and forth; therefore, if the wave is large
> enough for each wave cycle, four vortices (of some nature) would form. They
> would be 'dragged along' by the wave at a much lower speed. The 'lagging'
> pair would interfere with the leading pair being formed by the next 'surge'
> of the wave. What happens to the disturbance moving forward in time and
> space? To 1st order, ignoring the lagging vortices provides an oppositely
> rotatiing pair moving forward with the wave, but with a much reduced
> velocity. A portion of the linear momentum of the incident wave (moving
> forward at a uniform velocity) has been converted into the balanced angular
> momentum of the vortices that oscillate back and forth as they move forward
> with the carrier wave.
>
> There are other similarities and differences between the leptons and the
> vortices, but they would take more study than I have time for now.
> Nevertheless, just thinking about vortices from the water waves is useful
> for thinking about the creation of leptons from a photon. We would not
> think of the vortex pair as being the same as the incident plane wave, and
> they are not. Yet they are closely related and the pair is more so than
> either vortex alone.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150416/68687608/attachment-0001.htm>