[General] Matter in the form of electromagnetic vortices

[David Mathes]

Wilhelm
First off, well done! The paper provides theory and experiment. The theory is quite interesting and challenges the imagination but provides not just a path but a nice traveled road to walk down through theory and experimental data. From my reading the paper explains clearly and concisely as well as providing enough direction so as to avoid misunderstanding. 
The following comments are in the form of a conversation where ideas are discussed more as a suggestion from a friend than anything approaching a recommendation by a referee. 
I do have a presonal goal of eliminating "it" from papers.  While they may get "it" when they are clear headed, I believe that people read papers at times when they are tired and in doing so, are challenged to figure out what "it" is referring to. Papers tend to flow better when written explicitly instead of using pronouns such as "it".
Since there are various acronyms and parameters used and may not be widely known, summarizing terminology at the beginning might be useful. 
For clarity and reference, equations should be isolated and numbered.
The use of the word toroids is too general. While the figures look like ring torus, there is no discussion of horn or spindle torus. A little clarity might help. In describing a toroid, consider a parametric model. 
For the past week I've been trying to digest the concept that one photon could produce a positron-electron pair using vortex theories I'm familiar with. I must admit that while I'm normally unimpaired by education that my self-education on vortex theories and the negative attitudes in the US limit towards vortex theory (especially Russian) limit my understanding of vortex theory to that of hydrodynamics and MHD. However, at the level of the photon and electron, there are clearly rotations going on and calling them vortices may simply be a word of convenience where another might be better (in my humble opinion). 
So I've been rereading the paper a couple of times.  The Figures are interesting since one could easily setup a poster based on the concepts and data. Energy distributions are especially welcome. 
Often, details can overwhelm the concept so I've been thinking over Figure 1 "Pair Creation Concept." I printed it and examine it almost daily. For me, it's not what is there but what isn't. While I like the diagram, a Feynman diagram of the process would be nice. 
The TEM photon assumes an E vector of 1, and only a single photon. I was wondering how a model such as phat photons (Williams SPIE 2013) where E(total) = N*E(0) for photon. More importantly, when I first looked at this Figure 1, I had to think through whether if the photon was polarized or not - and the possibilities using SU(N)-EM photons (Barrett, Froning, etc.)
Then I was wondering of there were actually two photons that were entangled with 90 degree phase between them. Then two photons could occupy the same space (maybe). 
I concluded that it was just a photon and went on.
Another part of Figure 1 is that you speak of a TEM wave, and then do not address the M portion. The polarization would become clearer if the B (or H) field vector were shown for both electron and positron instead of just showing the rotation. It's not clear if there is an anti-rotation of E-B field vectors or that B is the trailing vector to E in both positron and electron.
I'm familiar with thunderstorms where an electric discharge goes to earth and positron discharge is ejected in the opposite direction. In Babar (B-meson) experiments (SLAC, BELLE et al), direction is important. So it's not clear to me if electron-positron pair creation is at the angle in Figure 1, 180 degrees as in thunderstorm with fields doing the sorting, or some angle in between. 
This led me to the collision partners when are simply entitled mass. Characterizing the  collision partners and any limitations would be welcome.
Charge-Parity violations are not addressed. Nor charge-time. At least a statement on whether the theory resolves a CP or CT violation issue would be a plus. No worries though. CP violations occur in B-meson decay. 
I'm also wondering if there is 
Are those nu
Where are the references? acknowledgements?
Absent from this paper is a matrix representation, 4-vector EM. How do SRT and GRT apply? 
Are we simply assuming a free electron model or perhaps a Dirac model? How is zitterbewegung handled? 
No mention on the basis of the whether Maxwell, Heaviside, or extended Maxwell theories other than QCD and QED. 
I look forward to seeing the next draft or the preprint.
Best
David








 
      From: Wilhelm Hagen <wfhagen at gmail.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 12:58 PM
 Subject: [General] Matter in the form of electromagnetic vortices
   
I would appreciate some productive and critical reviews of the attached paper.Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.Thank you,WF Hagen
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150426/bf048a6b/attachment-0001.htm>