[General] Casimir and van der Waals

Tue Apr 21 09:33:13 PDT 2015

David:

I don’t know if you meant me, but if you do, I imagine harmonics are involved. In atomic orbitals <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties>  “electrons exist as standing waves”. I can’t see that changing much if an electron gets turfed out of an atom. When it comes to quarks though I tend to think of Qiu-Hong Hu’s ABB50/25 poster, where he talked to people like Sir Michael Atiyah about TQFT and knots. The electron is akin to the trivial knot:

…and the proton is akin to the trefoil knot. Start at the bottom left of the picture below, and call out the crossing-over directions: up, down, up. When you smash this thing you don’t see two ups and a down flying out. 

Regards

John D

From: David Mathes [mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: 21 April 2015 17:12
To: John Duffield; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'; 'John Williamson'
Cc: 'Kyran Williamson'; 'Philipp Steinmann'; 'Nick Bailey'; 'Anthony Booth'; 'Ariane Mandray'; 'Manohar .'
Subject: Re: [General] Casimir and van der Waals

John

I was working with the toroidal mathematics and topology for my paper last night using Richard's parametric equation so that part is understood quite well. I agree with the toroid models where the toroid geometry is spherical in nature although internally there is a quanta/photon that is circulating. 

If you are concerned about the phat photon, Planck's constant is still intact. And the data is in your CRC handbook. See Williams paper on Phat photons (SPIE 2013)

If at frequency there were sub energy levels lower than 1 in the electron, it might indicate the structure of the quanta/photon itself has levels, or the electron can have subharmonics. One might be able to use the subharmonics of N^-1 to create particles such as quarks and gluons.

David

  _____  

From: John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> >
To: 'David Mathes' <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> >; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >; 'John Williamson' <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> > 
Cc: 'Kyran Williamson' <kyran_williamson at hotmail.com>; 'Philipp Steinmann' <philipp.steinmann at gmail.com <mailto:philipp.steinmann at gmail.com> >; 'Nick Bailey' <nick at bailey-family.org.uk <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> >; 'Anthony Booth' <abooth at ieee.org <mailto:abooth at ieee.org> >; 'Ariane Mandray' <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> >; 'Manohar .' <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com <mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 1:18 AM
Subject: RE: [General] Casimir and van der Waals

David:

Forgive me for interrupting, but Plank’s constant is a constant of action, related to angular momentum. Roll your finger round fast or slow like Susskind rolled his marker round at 2:50  <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNg819PiZY> here, but IMHO it’s always the same circle because it’s always the same amplitude. This is “hidden in plain sight”, being depicted on pictures of the electromagnetic spectrum: 

The resonance is there because there’s only one wavelength that’s a 4π match for that amplitude, which is why electrons are all 511keV and all have the same Compton wavelength. Planck length is l=√(ћG/c³). Replace √(ћG) with 4πn where n is a suitable value. Now set n to 1, and work out 4πn/√(c³). Even without the binding-energy adjustment you can see it’s the Compton wavelength. And mentally “inflate” John & Martin’s toroidal electron because the electron has a toroidal topology but a spherical geometry. It has to have the toroidal topology otherwise it wouldn’t be chiral, and the positron would be the same as the electron. 

See Adrian Rossiter’s antiprism <http://www.antiprism.com/album/860_tori/index.html>  website for the torus animations. 

Regards

John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: 20 April 2015 06:24
To: John Williamson; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Kyran Williamson; Philipp Steinmann; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; Manohar .
Subject: Re: [General] Casimir and van der Waals

John

Your email sounds like the story is ripe for a paper.

A rigorous paper would need to look at the various boundary conditions for all forces not just the fundamental, but addressing such fictitious forces aka pseudo-force, d'Alembertian or inertia forces.

In addition to accounting for vdW forces in a Casimir type experiment, any force in an accelerated frame would be suspect as well. I see this as a an additional frame of reference issue in both cases. 

With an experiment or theory, I'm always interested in any boundary conditions. Knowing the playing field and where there is an out-of-bound line, real or virtual as well as the number of dimensions and parameters involved always helps.

For the continuous, differentiable, curvilinear path of a photon/quanta in an electron, we can resort to differential geometry, a topic that even Einstein needed a tutor. Frenet-Serret formulas can be used to determine a 3D coming frame of reference. However, the caution here is that 4D and even 5D theories may require modifying the F-S, and in doing so, we may see a range of comoving reference frames or at least multiples in a 3D representation. 

This dimensional disconnect may also be exhibited in changes of scale. Sub-Planck's constant there may another closed dimension. So it's not clear that 4D theory is sufficient to resolve the reference frame issue.

To account for amplitude,  we assume that a phat photon is defined by Williams as

E = N^2 hv for N = 1,2,3...

ref: SPIE 2013 Williams, "Phat Photons"

Makes me wonder what other gems we are missing in the past SPIE "What are photons?", and why are we still even asking the question. 

Now, E = hc/l  where l is wavelength so we have with Williams amplitude 

E = N^2 hc/l for N = 1,2,3...

So one has to wonder if the amplitude can be less than, equal to or greater than Planck's constant, and in all three cases, does it really make sense.

In the simplest resonance situation, we have three cases for the issue of Planck's constant.

a) wavelength and amplitude are less than Planck's constant

b) wavelength or amplitude are less than Planck's constant

c) wavelength and amplitude exceed Planck's constant.

I have ignored mass and charge. The difficulty is the Planck's units are not closed with respect to mass, and therefore one can use alpha to extend this lack of closure to charge.

FWIW Planck's length is my favorite cGh formula. It's right there with the Euler formula

L(P) = SQRT(2PI*h*G/(c^3))

Of course, for fundamental constants we are missing the Coulomb constant and the Boltzman constant but after all we are interested only in length. A key assumption is that all these fixed numbered units are in the baseline context of free space. What happens if fundamental constants are not constant...that is, what are c, G and h in a negative vacuum since they are based on free space or the zero vacuum. And then if we permit oscillations across the zero vacuum, which constants are variable no matter how slight?

So while we are attempting to describe photons and electrons, we may need to identify the local environment a bit better beginning with free space.

David

From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> >
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >; David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> > 
Cc: Manohar . <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com <mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> >; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org <mailto:abooth at ieee.org> >; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> >; Kyran Williamson <kyran_williamson at hotmail.com <mailto:kyran_williamson at hotmail.com> >; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> >; Philipp Steinmann <philipp.steinmann at gmail.com <mailto:philipp.steinmann at gmail.com> > 
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 8:50 PM
Subject: Casimir and van der Waals

Right ....

Van der Waals and Casimir.  

There are hundreds of published, peer reviewed, papers out there purporting to have measured the Casimir force. I have not read all of them and some of them may well be right. Many of these are "me too" papers confirming someone else's results. Others are papers showing an agreement between the forces measured and the calculations for the Casimir force.

So why, then, do I think that most of these guys have been wasting their time?

That is down to a couple of friends of mine Philipp Steinmann and John Weaver (cheers)- as well as many other excellent people in nanoelectronics in Glasgow who made the experiment possible in the first place.  I'll copy this to Philipp for comment - though he now works in another field. It also comes from, for me, to some understanding of the basic physics due (partly) to an excellent collaboration with Casimir himself many years ago. 

The Glasgow guys are seriously excellent set of experimental physicists - with the proper integrity to see things for what they truly are. Casimir was a pleasure to meet and work with. One of the smartest people it has been my pleasure to interact with.

Yes, indeed, the van der Waals force dependence depends on the configuration, as you say David. So does the Casimir force. 

John Weaver, Philipp and others, considered measuring the Casimir force using their atomic force microscope (AFM), one of the best in the world at the time. I'm telling you - these guys are good. Easy experiment - plenty of sensitivity - direct measurement -no messing around. Just do it. Indeed, the experiment showed, as have countless others,  a force as predicted by Casimir. Job done? no!

What about other possible forces such as the Van der Waals force?

I think it was Philipp who did most of the work here (corrections guys?). He calculated it and found it was virtually the same as the Casimir force, with the same dependence and the same constants.

Consider, for a moment, the two scenarios ...

One, Casimir. Two parallel mirrors in a vacuum. Excluded QM modes.

Two. vd Waals. Two parallel conductors in a vacuum. Electron wave-function overlaps.

Oh dear: mirrors are conductors ...

Think about it: it is the same physical problem. Different boundary conditions. Same answer. 

Surprise?

These guys had the integrity to drop this at that point. Qudos.  Question is, can one trust others to do as good a job?

Now, any paper on "measuring the Casimir force" had, for me, better do a damn good job on the van der Waals force as well. There may be such a paper now. This was not the case for the first few dozen I looked at though. Phillipp? John? anyone else?  Please let me know.

Regards, John W (the other one).

From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 4:13 AM
To: David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Manohar .; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; Kyran Williamson; Nick Bailey
Subject: Re: [General] Position

Hey David,

You are being a bit too quick for me ... Its the early hours of the morning here (3.46 am) and I need to warm up! I was just going to write you an email about the Casimir and van der Waals forces. It will have to wait. I'll go (to nice calming grassy) green then...

From: David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:35 AM
To: John Williamson; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Ariane Mandray; Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Kyran Williamson
Subject: Re: [General] Position

John

Thanks. 

As usual, I will reply in bloody red.

Your mileage may vary,

David

From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> >
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> >; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> > 
Cc: Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> >; Manohar . <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com <mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> >; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> >; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org <mailto:abooth at ieee.org> >; Kyran Williamson <kyran_williamson at hotmail.com <mailto:kyran_williamson at hotmail.com> > 
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 7:13 PM
Subject: RE: [General] Position

Dear David,

Sorry I saw the later one first ....

Here goes. Answers in blue are direct ones from the standpoint of my new theory of light and matter. I should say that Martin and I are not yet in complete agreement on this, and he would answer at least one of the questions you pose slightly differently. I think. We are currently working on parallel strands. This is normal for us. It is through disagreement and argument that we usually make the most progress. In general (though not always) - it turns out that we both have grasped part of the points needed to make proper progress... 

From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:25 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Position

John

I like the rigor with which Martin and you have addressed the electron. 

Thanks!

So a few questions...

So your thesis seems to be...

1. Mass exists without charge but charge does not exist without mass?

Yes. Mass (density) - when expresses properly relativistically - gives rise to charge.

Mass is a special case of energy density.

Not quite: John M is right here. Mass and energy a) differ by a factor of velocity squared, and B) affect the rate of change of time differently in general relativity in the way they affect the rate of change of time. Anyway you meant to say mass density is a special case of energy density, did you not? Sorry, I am a bit of a (failed) rigour nut!

2. Are you equating the curved photon with the off-geodesic photon?

No.

What's the difference? See 4 as well.

Photons follow a geodesic. The geodesic could, itself, be curved.

3. Is the charge due to an interaction between the quantum vacuum, spacetime, or both?

No. Charge is an interaction between charged particles. Its dynamics is a manifestation of the nature of spacetime, but that spacetime is that defined by the internal ruler and clock of the particle itself, not of some external medium.

Slightly wrong question...Is the source of charge due to an interaction between the photon-in-the-electron and vacuum, quantum vacuum (negative vacuum) or both?

Good questions both. No, neither. The source of charge, for me, lies in the nature of confinement of charge on the one hand, and the nature of an "event" in an exchange on the other. For me, the first of these is a consequence of the proper, rigorous application of relativity, and the second a development of the basis of quantum electrodynamics. Both really need a proper paper to explain. One such paper I have drafted already for submission to SPIE. The other I am considering trying to wind up enough time and energy to write.

4. Can a on-geodesic photon have charge? 

No.

5.  Is it even remotely probable that the charge is masked, hidden or contained within the structure of a photon as if the photon structure was a Faraday cage? (The Quantum Faraday Cage).

Yes, Confined photons exhibit some of the properties of charge - experimentally. This is how such things as "optical tweezers" work. The key, as I said before, is not thinking outside the box, or inside the box, but is understanding the nature of the box itself.

The box is a thin layer more shaped like a sphere which may be slightly ellipsoid in nature. How thick the layer define the box and other characteristics need to be determined. Furthermore, one needs to determine if conditions inside and outside the box are the same or different especially in terms of particles permitted to traverse the electron. Are quarks and leptons excluded from traversing the electron? Are all bosons permitted or only photons and perhaps gluons, and of course, neutrinos. 

No- I do not thing the "box" is a membrane. This is far too simple-minded. I think it is a force. The "inside" and "outside" are a limit (the relativistic rotation horizon) not a postulated object with extra properties. The explanation of this this in the "absolute realtivity" paper for SPIE.

Devising an experiment will require extending sensors and experimental science to below Planck scale.

Not at all. the proper scale for the electron is of the order of its Compton wavelength. Anything which hides behind a scale not accessible to present or to future conceivable experiment should be treated with the utmost suspicion!

6. Is mass more a result of total angular momentum? If so, aren't we back to the issue of Mach's theory and the spinning ballerina?

Oh yes! Mach's principle - and its development are exactly where we need to look!

And finally, FWIW

7. Is mass a result of a topological, EM conditioned, two loop photon that is off-geodesic in loop quantum gravity resulting in it's simpler form, dynamic theories such as QCD and QED? 

Maybe. I like loop quantum gravity, but am no expert. I think this is, in stark contrast to most of current theoretical physics, a live field with a lot of potential.

8. Are the current set of electron models (all known) more an approximation and therefore, an effective field theory for a comprehensive field theory? if so, is there a roadmap to get from effective to comprehensive?

I hope so. That is exactly what one of the papers I originally intended to submit to the conference is all about. We need to go from electron model to electron theory (and from standard model to standard theory for that matter). If I am right no roadmap is needed - it is done. If not (likely!) then I hope it is, at least, a step along the road.

The roadmap needs to show the deadens, not just turning the direct path into the proposed freeway. 

Then there are those pesky flying cars that suggest spooky action at a distance. 

I get the impression the electron is the elephant in the room. It's certainly no spherical chicken. We have all grasped the elephant electron in various ways, some of us have examined it thoroughly on the outside, and the throughput. The elephant analogy falls apart when accelerating to relativistic velocities.

We literally run into GRT limits for c, but not a specific value. The specific value is condition dependent. The other limit is Planck's constant. We simply have difficulty using 4D principles in what may be a 5D world. 

With c and h stopping us temporarily, we need to look at G as well. Was Mach right? Einstein thought so. For us, we not only need to define the box but the thickness of the walls and any fields contained within as well as those outside including surface, near and far fields.

 I do not think c is a problem. Vary it and nothing measureable happens. All your rulers and clocks vary in precisely the same way. It is a LIMITING, velocity of all material things. I think we need to CALCULATE such things as Plank's constant from first principles. Action at a distance is not an option. We need to understand locality and causality properly. Everything MUST be causal. The world IS at least 5D. 4D spacetime, plus energy plus (for me) a sign. G should be derivable from EM (Martin and I have, as he said, a daft model for this which does this and could be extended and expanded). Yes Mach was right, but he did not go far enough. There are no "walls". The electron is no elephant. It is also no chicken. It is more an egg. Maybe just a little off spherical!

Now are you going to give me time to get onto van der waals or not?

- J. (W).

David

Cheers, John.

P.S. you asked earlier what, for me, "properly relativistic" was. I mean that each and every quantity should appear everywhere with its proper relativistic form. Vectors with the proper 4-vector element, fields, with the proper field element, and masses with the proper invariant mass element. This is the basis of my extension of relativity to what I am calling "absolute relativity".

From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> >
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> > 
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Position

HI Richard,

Ok ... I see what level she was coming in at then ....

Yes, as I said before and as Martin explained in some length. Briefly, charges, have masses associated with them. This is true theoretically, but more importantly there are no rest-massless charged particles experimentally.  Masses aquire a gamma of infinity as they approach the speed of light. It does not matter that this is not in the direction of motion as this is true also for a "stationary" electron with lightspeed rotation. The corollary is that: if your definition for a photon is that it is rest-massless then it cannot, itself, be charged.

One can have a "charged photon", of course, (like the Z boson) but it then has rest mass and will get to an infinite gamma as one approaches the speed of light.

Regards, John.

From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 7:19 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Position

John W. and others,

    The physics professor who moderated my APS session thought she has spotted a flaw in my model, which refers to the velocity c of the circulating charged photon which is a model for the electron. She assumed that this c was the velocity which would go into the calculation of gamma in my model, leading to an absurd result. But this is not at all the case. It is the longitudinal velocity v < c  of the helically-circulating charged photon that corresponds to the measured electron’s velocity, and it is this longitudinal velocity v which goes into calculating gamma. She didn’t mention anything more complicated in her criticism like gauge problems or Yang-Mills theories. Is there any accepted physical theory that would claim that a circulating charged photon with spin 1/2 hbar cannot exist and so cannot be an electron? I would be surprised if this is the case.

        Richard

On Apr 17, 2015, at 9:12 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> > wrote:

David,

Wonderful!

I'm delighted that you pick this up and help bring the debate to proper level.

You are absolutely right. Especially in view of gauge theories no-one has yet been able to "fix" the issue of charge. This is related to the problem of covariance of solutions and of  the "desert" to which the quantum field theory community refers. I was at a recent conference with Roger Penrose, and Basil Hiley and Chris Isham (amongst many other notables).  The closing talk - given by Deser - gave an overview of attempts to tackle this - showing that all had been been - so far - in vain. The main dig was at Isham, with Deser claiming that he had personally knocked down all his attempts. My impression is that the two are clearly fast friends and this was an ongoing conversation.

I will copy this to some of the above, but in the background or as a forward, as some of these guys get quite enough spam as it is.

My own view is that part of the problem lies in that "gauge theories" - magnificent as they are and complicated as they can get have a fatal flaw not understood by many - the idea that there should exist a full gauge freedom. This blows the minds of even the best as they try to puzzle through it.

Let me go through some of the below in turn with reference to experiment where I know anything about it. I may try to more after I follow up some of the links with which I am unfamiliar.  I'll go in blue.

From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> ]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 6:36 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Kyran Williamson; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Position

John

Especially in view of gauge theory, I'm not sure how to "fix" the issue of charge.

So I've been muddling around ideas regarding charge:

1. No other charged particle is permitted within the electron. This statement seems obvious. Proving this may prove quite challenging. For some, this suggests no other mass. For others, this suggests no other quarks, and in doing so we are back to the issue of the negative vacuum within electron space.

No solution here. The leptons in general and the electron in particular appear "structureless" in high energy collision experiments. There is no simpler charged object within them - at least up to the level of current experimental capability. If such a thing was discovered, it would anyway just shift the charge puzzle to a deeper level.

2. In any model circulating photon or quanta, charge is the result of transverse fields and may be an indirect result.

First note that all models need to continuously conserve momentum. 

At least ... it would be good if the constituent was also local, continuous and properly relativistic as well.

 a) Photon-in-the electron model requires containment, curvature and closed path. All models should be able to be modeled with a vector field even in 4D. 5D is a bit more difficult with essentially a 5x5 matrix.

Agreed whole-heartedledly. Confinement and its mechanism are the key here. I have been puzzling for a long time about the mechanism for confinement. As Martin noted, we were lucky enough to work with Casimir himself in the early days - looking for a possibility of using the Casimir force for electron confinement for our electron as a localised photon model. Our conclusion was that a spherical (bubble) cavity did not work, but that a toroidal cavity might. My present view, however, is that the Casimir force is, if it exists separately from the van der Waals force at all (which I think is not yet proven experimentally), is not sufficient to the task in hand. Anything confining the photon needs to be more potent than this. I now have such a force, as outlined in the paper presented at FFP14 which I circulated earlier - based on the scalar mass-energy term I introduce in the new theory of electromagnetism. I do not think that this is the whole story yet, but hope to develop that this year in and for the conference. Bottom line is - confinement is the key to charge and the understanding of charge needs the understanding of photon confinement.

b) Quanta-in-the-electron model suggests a transformation of photon-to-quanta,

This is manifestly true from experiment. Photons transform to particles and vice-versa. The key here, and the argument in the WvdM model a couple of decades ago, is that the photon transverse field becomes configured topologically so that it becomes radial. This is, for us, the origin of charge. In doing this, the configuration becomes, necessarily, double-looped. This is, for us, the origin of the creation of fermions from bosons. 

and in doing so, the quanta may be charged or not. 

No. To be covariant it must absolutely NOT be charged. Charge must arise from the uncharged - as in experiment. This is the key problem unresolved in Richards model, Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanics (he was aware of this and tried later to fix it) and in all the present QFT's within the standard model (as far as I am aware).

c) Nested model combines a and b to create a 3 level nest quanta/photon/electron model. Assumes the quanta has not structure internally.

In my view as at present - again no. The quantum must, and should, have an internal structure. This is another fun puzzle. My answer to this is to base the internal structure of the photon on the underlying relativistic nature of 4-spacetime. This is the theme of the paper I am considering dropping from the conference in favour of one answering Chip's problem of causality in the transactional interpretation of exchange events. I may re-consider this.

d) N-nested layer theory where the 4th level of nesting is the structure within the quanta...one could go further and perhaps eventually bump into strings at some point but the lack of experimental tools to probe at this level, and the minimal evidence of the quanta, puts N-nested theory of elementary particles in the highly speculative category 

My personal view at present is that string theory has a lot of very nice maths, but is manifestly (and often by design) completely unrelated to and untested by any present experiment. Hence its survival as a candidate theory so far. 

e) SWAG - the spindle contains another sub-elementary particle - perhaps the magnetic monopole??? Fantasy that may be a possibility but is a bit more complex than proposed theories. 

The electron monopole model implies - by duality - a magnetic monopole model. As argued in our 1997 paper the reason for its non-existence is that the electric monopole is of the same nature - but at a far lower energy. This is related, for me, to the underlying nature of the weak force. It is just the dual of the EM force.

3. The wake of the quanta or photon which emits a continuously expanding field. Think of the wake of a boat...not only is there a primary wake but secondary and beyond wakes. At the speed of light in vacuo, the wake is almost transverse to the quanta/photon. (ref: Froning and others) We have already seen other complex wake signatures

This is beyond me. Can't wait to look it up. Do you have some more detailed references?

4. Conditioning of the photon beyond just containment and curvature - Suggestions vary...SU(n), ribbon like photon, photon interacting with path, CPT violating photon, phat photon, football of frequencies of quanta for photon, 

I think it is wrong to put complex structure in a-priori. Such things as SU(n) should flow out of a model, not be put into it.

6. Modification of SRT/GRT - Probably won't work given the 100 or so theories that have attempted to assault GRT as premier. 

So far, the best that can be done is to linearize GRT using Hoyle-Narkilar (see  Lance Williams, Fearn, Miloni,etc) 

I think SRT and GRT are both very nearly correct. Any proper theory must, at least, reduce to these in proper limits. SRT, for me, is absolutely so. GRT is a quite simple theory at present. Here there is more room for manoeuvre and this could be fun. I think the first step may be to replace the scalar curvature in GRT at present with a pseudoscalar curvature. This is, in itself, quite a big job. Any GRT experts in the group who would like to give it a go?

7. TOEs - Weyl, (Williams)Heim, extended Heim, E8, Quantum Gravity (cGh), loop quantum gravity...TOE is waiting on the photon and electron folks to figure out the right direction to take the next steps.

Too true. One needs a proper theory of the photon and electron at least. Lets get on with it!

8. FTL approaches where GRT is preserved as a subset...may require negative vacuum, energy density conditioning or other "new and improved" approaches

I think FTL is ok, provided it preserves the proper (in the relativistic sense) nature of the underlying absolute relativity.

Finally, an issue that impedes further progress may be inertial frames and frames of reference. Millis has for almost two decades been examining the issue. Here is a recent presentation (2014) on inertial frames.

 <http://aspw.jpl.nasa.gov/files/ASPW2014%20PRESENTATIONS/WEDNESDAY/Breakthrough%20Prop/Millis.pdf> http://aspw.jpl.nasa.gov/files/ASPW2014%20PRESENTATIONS/WEDNESDAY/Breakthrough%20Prop/Millis.pdf

See also 2013

 <http://www.globalsciencecollaboration.org/public/site/PDFS/time%20distance/Millis%20M.%20Warp%20Drives%20%26%20Wormholes.pdf> http://www.globalsciencecollaboration.org/public/site/PDFS/time%20distance/Millis%20M.%20Warp%20Drives%20%26%20Wormholes.pdf

Millis (2011) summarizes the Davis/Millis tome on "Frontiers in Propulsion Science" (2009). Perhaps we need to collectively develop a vetting process specifically for the electron model similar to what Millis has done in Figure 1. 

 <http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1063> http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1063

Cannot wait to have a look at these. Next job!

David

Regards to all. 

John W.

From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> >
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> > 
Cc: Manohar . <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com <mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> >; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> >; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org <mailto:abooth at ieee.org> >; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> >; Kyran Williamson <kyran_williamson at hotmail.com <mailto:kyran_williamson at hotmail.com> > 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Position

Hiya Richard and everyone,

I'm afraid the professor may have a point. This is related to what I was saying in an earlier email about the nature of charge and the relationship to gauge and to mass. Do you remember what she asked exactly?

To have a "charge" you need to go to a Coulomb-type gauge, related to the charge in that specific frame. This charge has a (radial) field associated with it in this frame which, itself, has an energy density (and since it is pinned to that frame a rest-mass density). You are positing an oscillation backwards and forwards at lightspeed (or greater) of this charge. This, neccessarily, takes one past infinite gamma. If one then wishes to keep special relativity, this is not physically possible. To be fair, as I said before, this problem is also there in the Dirac model.

This has a big problem with all Yang-Mills type theories (pretty much all of QFT then) and is a well-known problem in HEP and field theory circles. This problem has remained intractable for more than half a century since no one had managed (anyone know any different?), until my 2014 paper, to write down a covariant wavefunction for the photon, with which to construct an everywhere lightspeed solution without this problem.

At a simpler level one needs a model, such as the old WvdM model, where the photon remains rest-massles and chargeless - and charge the arises from the re-configuration of the field inside a double-loop topology. The ac photon field is then "rectified" in Andrews parlance, to be outward or inwards directed by virtue of the confinement mechanism (postulated in that paper- ascribed to the new "pivot" term in my new theory). There is no internal charge. Charge emerges as a consequence of the kind of confinement.

Don't worry too much ... these are known problems and I (think I) know how to fix them.

Regards, John W.

From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> ]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 4:47 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Position

Chandra, Andrew and others, 

    My presentation at APS in Baltimore on Tuesday went well in that in 10 minutes I presented the material as planned. The session had about 10 attendees, and was moderated by a professor of theoretical high energy physics from SLAC (This was very good). My powerpoint for the session is attached below.

The moderator asked a question indicating that she had misunderstood (perhaps because of the way I expressed it) a main idea in my electron model. She thought that because I proposed that the electron is a circulating charged photon, that this implies that gamma for the electron model is infinite, making the model absurd. But in the model, while the circulating charged photon’s velocity is c along its helical path, it is the charged photon's longitudinal component velocity v that corresponds to v of the electron. The experimentally measured velocity v of the electron is always less than c, so gamma in the model is normal and not infinite. I didn’t have time to clarify this to her after my talk so I will try to do so by email. I hope no one in this group has the professor’s misunderstanding of my model on this point.

      Richard

On Apr 16, 2015, at 10:54 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> > wrote:

Andrew,

Thanks for your questions.

1  As far as I know, a light beam of normal (uncharged, spin 1 hbar) photons is not bent in a strong electric or magnetic field. The proposed circulating charged photon (spin 1/2 hbar and charge -e for an electron) that models an electron would of course bend in both an electric field and a magnetic field (unless the electric and magnetic forces cancelled each other). 

2. As far as I know, mass is always associated with a charged particle. In the case of a circulating charged photon, its mass is the energy that the circulating charged photon has when its longitudinal velocity (called the electron’s velocity) is at or near zero, i.e. m=Erest/c^2= 0.511 Mev/c^2 .

3. The circulating charged photon model of a relativistic electron does not incorporate a specific model of the charged photon, so different charged photon models could have different charge distributions. I doubt that the transluminal energy quantum associated with a photon or an electron in my models of the photon and the electron is point-like since the transluminal energy quantum for a photon or an electron can pass through a double-slit like an extended wave. The charged photon’s electric charge is associated with the helical movement of the charged photon at light-speed along its helical trajectory, while an uncharged spin 1 hbar photon travels linearly at light-speed, unless either the electron or photon is being diffracted by a slit or double slit for example in which case their motions are not yet defined. In my transluminal energy quantum model of the uncharged spin 1 hbar photon, the photon is itself composed of a helically circulating transluminal energy quantum, which is uncharged. In the circulating-charged-photon model of a relativistic electron,  the circulating charged photon must have spin-1/2 hbar at least at relativistic velocities because the electron has spin 1/2 hbar at relativistic velocities, as well as at lower velocities .The energy quantum appears point like (or very small) when a photon or electron is detected, in which case we say that we detected a photon or an electron, when what we actually detected is the photon's or electron’s transluminal energy quantum. The variability of the position and momentum of the helically-moving transluminal energy quantum in the photon model exactly matches the minimum requirement of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: delta x times delta p = hbar/2 (as shown in my "transluminal energy quantum models of the photon and the electron” article.) Perhaps it is the variable motion of the energy quantum generating a particle that requires the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that applies to that particle.

      Richard

On Apr 16, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> > wrote:

Richard,

I have begun to incorporate the various positions; but, I have a few questions on your model:

1.      Have you ever found any evidence of a light beam bending in a strong electric or magnetic field? (I have speculated on every photon as being both fermionic and well as bosonic, so there could be a basis for the spin 1/2 component.)

2.      Do you have any evidence for a charge not having mass?

3.      How is the charge spatially distributed within the photon?

Andrew

__________________________________-

Chandra, Andrew and others,

   Here’s my current position paper on my charged photon model of the electron, and the energy quantum, with an attached Word file of the same:

Richard Gauthier’s position on photon models of the electron, and the transluminal energy quantum

Two types of non-pointlike electron models

For those who have not accepted the ideal that the electron is pointlike with intrinsic spin (as accepted in the standard model), two distinct loop models with variations have been proposed. The first is a single-loop model where the electron’s charge or its mass or momentum or a photon or photon-like object moves circularly at light-speed around a loop of circumference one Compton wavelength h/mc and radius R1= hbar/mc. The second is a double-loop model that has the charge or mass or momentum or a photon or photon-like object moving at light-speed around a double loop whose total length is also one Compton wavelength but whose radius is R2=hbar/2mc .  Several models of the photon have been combined with these basic or generic single or double-loop models to produce more elaborate models of the electron.

One main advantage of the single-loop model is that the calculated magnitude of the magnetic moment due to a circulating light-speed electron charge is the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m (the experimental value of the electron’s magnetic moment is slightly more than this.) But the calculated spin (z-component) of this model from the circulating momentum mc of the photon of Compton wavelength h/mc is Sz=R1 x p = (hbar/mc) x mc = hbar which is twice the spin of the electron. The experimental value of the spin ½ hbar of the electron has then to be found from some further hypothesis about the single-loop electron model.

One main advantage of the double-loop model is that the calculated spin (z-component) is Sz=R2 x p = (hbar/2mc) x mc = hbar/2 which is the correct electron spin (z-component). But the magnitude of the magnetic moment of this model is found to be ½ Bohr magneton. The experimental value of the electron’s magnetic moment (slightly more than 1 Bohr magneton) has then to be calculated or approximated from some further hypothesis about the double-loop model. The double-loop model also contains the zitterbewegung frequency fzitt=(2mc^2)/h of the electron found from the Dirac equation.

Both the single-loop and double-loop models have generally been described for a resting (v=0) electron. Some models have included motion v>0 of the electron to try to account for the experimental value of the de Broglie wavelength Ldb=h/(gamma m v) of a moving electron, and the experimental value of the very small (around or less than 10^-18m) of relativistic electrons found in high energy electron scattering experiments.

Gauthier’s charged photon model of the electron

My approach has been to model the electron relativistically as a helically circulating double-looping photon. The photon carries the electron’s charge and has spin ½ hbar, the same as that of an electron, rather than spin hbar of an uncharged photon. By equating the moving electron’s relativistic energy E=gamma mc^2 with the photon’s energy E=hf, the charged photon is found to have frequency f=(gamma mc^2)/h and a wavelength L= h/(gamma mc). While this frequency f was used by deBroglie to derive the electron’s deBroglie wavelength, the wavelength L=h/(gamma mc) of a hypothesized photon corresponding to a relativistic electron has never previously been reported or utilized to my knowledge, neither by de Broglie nor by others (including other electron modelers.)

The charged photon in the above model has these three photon characteristics: 1) its energy E=hf, 2) its momentum  p=h/L, 3) its speed of light c=fL. In addition it has 4) the electron’s charge, 5) a light-speed helical motion and 6) a spin ½ hbar.  In addition the radius of the helix for a resting electron (where the helix becomes a circle) is hbar/2mc . When these first 3 characteristics and the resting electron radius are combined with the helical motion of characteristic 5, a unique helical trajectory (except for right or left turning) is found for the charged photon model of the electron. Some of its characteristics are:

1)   Its radius for a resting electron is R2 = hbar/2mc

2)   The radius of  the charged photon’s helical trajectory decreases with increasing electron speed as R= R2/(gamma^2)

3)   The longitudinal component of the charged photon’s helical speed c is the speed v of the electron being modeled. The forward angle theta of the circulating helix is given by cos (theta) = v/c.

4)   The electron’s momentum p=gamma mv is the longitudinal component of the circulating photon’s momentum P=gamma mc.

5)   The pitch of the charged photon’s helical trajectory is maximum for v= c/sqrt(2) and gamma = sqrt(2), where theta = 45 degrees. The maximum helical pitch here is pi Ro, and decreases towards zero as v->0 and as v->c.

6)   The longitudinal component of the charged photon’s wave vector K corresponding the circulating charged photon’s relativistic wavelength L=h/(gamma mc) generates the de Broglie wavelength of the electron h/(gamma mv)

7)   The transverse component of the circulating photon’s momentum is ptrans=mc. At v=0, this transverse momentum when combined with the circulating photon’s helical radius hbar/2mc gives the electron’s spin Sz= + or – hbar/2

8)   Since the electron has spin ½ hbar at highly relativistic velocities, the spin of the circulating charged photon must also be ½ hbar, since in the charged photon model of the electron it is the charged photon’s spin at highly relativistic velocities that gives the electron model its spin ½ hbar at these velocities. The contribution of the helical radius R of the charged photon’s axis to the electron model’s spin Sz is R x mc = hbar/(2mc gamma^2) x mc = hbar/(2gamma^2) which is hbar/2 when v=0 but decreases towards zero at highly relativistic velocities. The charged photon’s spin ½ hbar remains constant at highly relativistic velocities and therefore gives the electron model its spin ½ hbar at these highly relativistic velocities.

An objection to the charged photon model that has been repeatedly raised is that an electron has spin ½ hbar and is a fermion while a photon has spin 1 hbar and is a boson, so an electron cannot be a charged photon. But if a circulating photon carrying the electron’s charge has spin ½ hbar it is not a boson but a fermion. In other words, photons may be of two types: uncharged with spin 1 hbar  (boson) and charged with spin ½ hbar (fermion).

Gauthier’s transluminal energy quantum model of the photon and a spin ½ photon model

A spin ½ hbar photon model is needed that satisfies this requirement of the charged photon model of the electron. One such model is obtained by modifying Gauthier’s transluminal energy quantum model of the photon, which has spin 1 hbar and is described in another publication (“Transluminal energy quantum models of the photon and the electron”). Suffice it to say here that when the transluminal energy quantum photon model’s helical radius of Lambda/2pi is changed to Lambda/4pi, the photon’s spin is reduced from hbar to hbar/2 and the photon obtained becomes a candidate for the spin ½ hbar photon that is required for the charged photon model of the electron.

The general concept of the transluminal energy quantum as a fundamental quantum particle is that electrons and photons as well as other fundamental particles may be composed of these energy quanta with different characteristics that produce gluons, quarks, neutrinos, muons and tau particles, W and Z particles and the Higgs boson, and possibly dark matter particles as well. A quark may be a circulating charged gluon in a similar way that an electron may be a circulating charged photon. This last paragraph is meant to be suggestive of the possible power of the concept of the transluminal energy quantum for structuring oscillating energy into various physical particles with their characteristics, but more theoretical as well as experimental research is needed here.

April 8, 2015

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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-natureoflightandparticles.org/dmath777%40yahoo.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/dmath777%40yahoo.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 richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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 davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%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/20150421/882418b6/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 20002 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150421/882418b6/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 69910 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150421/882418b6/attachment-0007.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 10459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150421/882418b6/attachment-0008.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9437 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150421/882418b6/attachment-0009.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8495 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150421/882418b6/attachment-0010.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8414 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150421/882418b6/attachment-0011.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4290 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150421/882418b6/attachment-0012.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5734 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150421/882418b6/attachment-0013.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: QposterABB50_25.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 338253 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150421/882418b6/attachment-0001.pdf>