[General] Position
John Duffield
johnduffield at btconnect.com
Wed Apr 22 06:28:24 PDT 2015
There is, however, a bit missing. Whatever is confining the photon. Light
does not usually go round and round in circles. It is, as I keep saying, an
understanding of the "box" - the confinement mechanism - that we need to
get to.
And there’s only one trick in the box:
Light.
See this here
<http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/olive/ode/physicsworld/LandingPage/LandingPage.a
spx?href=UEhZU1dvZGUvMjAxMC8wOS8wMQ..&pageno=MzM.&entity=QXIwMzMwMA..&view=Z
W50aXR5> Taming Light at the nanoscale? Here’s an excerpt:
“Look around, and you will probably see numerous electronic and optical
gadgets, such as mobile phones, personal digital assistants, laptops, TVs
and digital cameras. These may all do different things but they have one
thing in common: in the electronic circuits that drive these devices,
charged particles flow through components and impart power via what is
known as the conduction current. But is the motion of charged particles the
only current we have available? Those with a good memory for Maxwell’s
equations of electromagnetism will remember that in addition to the
familiar electric field, E, there is also a displacement field, D, which
relates to the effects caused by charges being displaced by E”.
Light is alternating displacement current. It’s normally alternating,
displacing this way ↑ then that ↓ way. When a wave moves through space,
space waves.
But when you twist it and use it to displace itself, it ends up displacing
this way Qor that Pway.
Regards
John
From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On
Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: 22 April 2015 06:16
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Position
Yes, that is right. Light in a box has rest mass (see o.a. Martins "light
is heavy" paper).
There is, however, a bit missing. Whatever is confining the photon. Light
does not usually go round and round in circles. It is, as I keep saying, an
understanding of the "box" - the confinement mechanism - that we need to
get to.
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: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 6:29 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Position
Hello John,
The circulating charged photon (constituting an electron) DOES have a
rest mass - it’s the rest mass of the electron. So the helically
circulating photon of spin 1/2 hbar that “is” the electron has a charge -
e and a rest mass (or mass in more modern usage) of 0.511Mev/c^2 . When the
helically circulating photon has a forward (longitudinal) velocity v (the
velocity of the electron) it has energy E=gamma mc^2 (the electron’s
energy) = hf, longitudinal momentum p=gamma mv (the relativistic momentum
of the moving electron, and total circulating momentum Ptotal= gamma mc
along its helical trajectory. The transverse component of the circulating
photon’s total momentum is mc and this is an invariant of the charged
photon’s motion for any speed v < c of the electron (v being the forward
speed of the helically circulating charged photon.)
There is some confusion in thinking about the rest mass of a circulating
photon (ref the professor from SLAC). It seems that she thought that the
rest mass is moving at the speed of light within the electron in my model,
but that is not the case. For a resting electron (circulating charged
photon) the transverse momentum mc of the charged photon is circulating at
light speed, but that’s OK for a photon. The circulating photon’s total
energy (for a resting electron) IS the rest mass of the electron, but that
mass moves with a velocity v when the circulating photon moves forward
longitudinally with velocity v.
Richard
On Apr 19, 2015, at 5:03 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> > wrote:
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
<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: 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/Breakthrou
gh%20Prop/Millis.pdf
See also 2013
http://www.globalsciencecollaboration.org/public/site/PDFS/time%20distance/M
illis%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
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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=
1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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 at <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=
1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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/20150422/82668d12/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list