[General] position

Mon Apr 27 12:00:33 PDT 2015

Dear Richard,

Something that no one seems to have mentioned/noticed is that the bound
photon, as a stationary electron, should have a spherical rather than a
circular path. Only in this manner can it have angular momentum in all and
any directions. Also, when moving, even slowly, relativistic effects will
'flatten' the sphere in the direction of motion. This flattening will raise
the energy, increase the inertia, and introduce the *E*-field distortions
called magnetic field, *B*.

The path distortion from the spherical with motion gives a helical path for
some portion of the photon length. The path is much more complicated for
elements of the path that are not normal to the direction of motion. The
photon itself may be a standing wave moving at c. If so, elements of the
wave move faster than c and later move slower than c. In the electron, the
same thing may happen. Only the average velocity is limited to c. Since the
photon is a wave, the phase velocity can greatly exceed c, before the
electron velocity becomes relativistic.

Andrew
__________________________________

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Andrew and all,
>    Here's a design challenge: design a single or double-looped circulating
> charged photon (either of spin 1 or spin 1/2) that models an electron and
> whose electric field satisfies Gauss' law and generates the electron's
> charge -e from its electric field, while its magnetic field generates the
> electron's magnetic moment (or at least the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m). The
> charged photon should travel at light speed and obey the relations E=hf and
> p=h/lambda. It should move in a circular path when the electron is at rest
> and in a helical path when the electron moves at non-relativistic or
> relativistic velocities, and should continue to generate the charge -e from
> Gauss' law while the electron is in motion. Indicate what modification(s)
> if any of Maxwell's equations are necessary to do this (they should be as
> few as possible, if any).
>      Richard
>
> On Apr 26, 2015, at 9:04 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Dear All,
>
> Bob has addressed a point that should be too obvious to need
> consideration. However, for many years, I ignored it and it appears that
> most of us still do so. Conservation of charge. While it is possible to
> posit and describe the electron in terms of a photon, recognition of the
> requirement for charge conservation and the positive and negative (but net
> neutral) nature of all photons must be accepted as a 'given'.
>
> It is for this reason that I have proposed the 4-D structure of the
> electron/positron pair. It explains so much and leads beyond the
> electron-only structure. I believe that this has to be a fundamental
> position for all of us - to be accepted, explained, and/or modeled in
> various ways. If not, then I fear that, as John W says, we will be unable "...
> to convince people we are not crazies..."
>
> The point is that while the 'twist' can explain the net charge of an
> electron, it presents the problem of what happens to the opposite field
> lines. They cannot be confined inside a 3-D container (topologically
> impossible w/o a charge source). My field-rectification and wormhole
> conjecture may not be the answer; but, it does address the problem. The
> field lines, as the gradient of a potential, presents a picture that Bob
> and I will be proposing for the dynamic potentials of standing waves within
> an interference pattern.
>
> The question is, "since there is no original potential within the space
> that becomes an electron, how does it get there?" Actually, to create an
> electron/positron pair, a strong electrical-potential gradient (such as a
> nucleus) must exist.  However, after the lepton pair is formed, the nucleus
> structure is left behind and remains unaffected. The potential(s) formed
> are balanced and become the lepton masses. They are separated in space by
> the nuclear potential gradient. Are they also separated and combined in
> 'time'? If so, how and by what. The energy density of the 'internal' field
> lines being compressed, by the photon 'curling' as it passes the nucleus,
> will distort space (into time) and help create the wormhole joining the
> field structures that will become the lepton pair.
>
> This distortion is the electric potential created in the formation
> process. The womhole is the vortex that gives the pair stability (and
> perhaps their ultimate independence).
>
> If anyone can come up with other (perhaps better) models, or reasons why
> such might not be required, please bring them forth.
>
> Andrew
> ____________________________________
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:17 AM, robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Friends of Light,
>> Pardon my intrusion on your discussion.  I have been warned that I will
>> be excluded unless  I actively participate.
>>
>> Chip's diagram's are beautiful!  His skill is enviable.  However, it
>> provokes questions.  Why spin h and not 1/2?  Are colors charge related?
>>
>> The photon may be a useful abstraction for expressing the way light
>> energy is packaged, rather than a stable, traceable entity. After the
>> photon energy has been assembled it may travel as a loosely entangled
>> assembly of EM waves that may follow unpredictable paths-- until they are
>> condensed  and captured by a resonator.   Though the electron is clearly
>> more discreet, it might also travel as an assembly of waves that pass
>> through both openings of a double slit while engaging in constructive or
>> destructive interference.
>> I am having conceptual difficulty imagining a topological twist that
>> totally conceals only the positive charge of a photon.
>>
>> Is an EM wave having only negative polarity a plausible construct?  Are
>> electrons without a positive partners being created with any frequency
>> today?
>>
>> Thanks for your patience,
>> Bob
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> From: chipakins at gmail.com
>> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:59:56 -0500
>> Subject: Re: [General] Einstein Philosophy by Dyson
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>>
>> Just finished computing a possible field topology for a photon with spin
>> h.
>>
>> Viewed from the longitudinal axis:
>>
>> <image001.jpg>
>>
>> And the side...
>>
>> <image004.png>
>>
>> Chip
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
>> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark,
>> Martin van der
>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 25, 2015 6:47 AM
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Einstein Philosophy by Dyson
>>
>>
>> Dear Chandra,
>>
>> I agree. I think that Einstein was even more right than he realized
>> himself, but the future must show us.
>>
>> Bohr did a great job on finding the structure of the atom and introduced
>> a revoltionary way of thinking to hold up the postulates required. That way
>> of thinking, however, is merely a scafolding, and it should be removed to
>> see the truth and beauty lying hidden behind it.
>>
>> Copenhagen interpretation is now no more than a dogma that hampers
>> progress!
>>
>> Cheers, Martin
>>
>
>
>> Op 25 apr. 2015 om 01:32 heeft chandra <chandra at phys.uconn.edu> het
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Friends:
>>
>> For a brief moment, allow me to change the subject. Freeman Dyson is an
>> excellent writer. In the last part  of his "Book Review" article
>> (attached), Dyson beautifully summarizes the three philosophical positions
>> of Einstein (Classical), Bohr (Duality) and the current generation (
>> Quantum-Only). To save time and to get to the philosophy segment, jump
>> to the bottom of the picture showing Bohr and Einstein goofing and relaxing!
>>
>> My philosophical position is more in line with Einstein; while
>> acknowledging that the one of the three key reasons behind the emergence of
>> quantum uncertainty is "because the processes in the second layer are
>> unobservable" (Dyson). This is why I have proposed, with demonstrated
>> experiments in my book ("Causal Physics"), that when we start framing our
>> enquiring postulates to imagine and visualize the invisible interaction
>> processes, the nature start to become a lot more transparent even within
>> the current QM formalisms. Further, this philosophy of Interaction Process
>> Mapping Epistemology (IPME) shows that current QM, in spite of its great
>> successes, a next generation formalism with deeper levels of enquiry has to
>> be developed by the next generation. In other words, I am suggesting that
>> our Knowledge Gatekeepers should change their blind devotion to currently
>> successful theories and encourage the next generation to come up with
>> various serious but radically different possible approaches.  Our
>> conference platform is one such example.
>>
>> If we do not deliberately frame our enquiring questions to visualize the
>> invisible aspects of nature's interaction processes; we will forever remain
>> in the darkness of duality. Duality represents ignorance; it does not
>> represent new or better knowledge. We have to go beyond Bohr.
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* General [
>> mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
>> *On Behalf Of *John Williamson
>> *Sent:* Friday, April 24, 2015 9:46 AM
>> *To:* David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> *Cc:* Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Articles of interest
>>
>>
>> Dear David and everyone,
>>
>> Sounds as though MIT does a bit of a better job of promoting itself than
>> I do (what a surprise!).
>>
>> There is nothing much new in looking at single electrons. SLAC was doing
>> this for years in HEP with its linear accelerator.  For that matter
>> Millikan was sensitive to single electrons with his oil-drop experiment -
>> and the school I went to was enlightened enough to let me do this
>> experiment myself at the age of sixteen or so. What is marvelous is that
>> they can make it sound as though detecting one electron something sexy!
>> Robert Hadfield (in our group) is in the business of detecting single
>> photons and John Weaver (in our group) has huge capability to look at
>> individual electrons with some of his work as well. This stuff is widely
>> published!
>>
>> More important than looking at detecting single electrons (easy enough!)
>> is looking at the underlying  sub-electron structure. Back in the late
>> 1980's and early 1990's I was in the business of looking at just that. I
>> designed a single electron electrometer sensitive at down to about a
>> thousandth of the electron charge. If you look at my Google scholar page
>> you can find several papers related to this. The device could also be used
>> as a single electron pump, to deliver a stream of electrons phase locked to
>> the frequency of a varying gate potential.  My paper (see attached),
>> looking at the electron sub-structure delivered electrons one-at-a-time and
>> probe the profile of the individual electron wave-function with a
>> resolution of better than a tenth of its de Broglie wavelength. This
>> experimental work did not stop when I left the field of course. Leo
>> Kouwenhoven, in particular, spent many years investigating my
>> single-electron electrometer device (and creating new ones) in the last
>> quarter of a century. There is now a very great deal of experimental
>> information about the inner structure of matter, electrons (and photons)
>> with which to work.
>>
>> What was lacking then, and is still not widely accepted now, is a proper
>> theoretical framework within which to interpret this inner structure. This
>> is what we have to do. Firstly develop the theoretical framework and
>> secondly get the message out.
>>
>> We have to convince people we are not crazies and that this is serious,
>> new science. That is what will be hard. Any communications of this to the
>> outside world needs to get rid of the speculative , ill informed, or just
>> plain wrong stuff that is perfectly ok within the context of an online
>> discussion or over a pint or two, but not ok at all if we wish to make a
>> serious attempt at convincing the outside world.
>>
>> Regards, John.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="
> 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 mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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/20150428/a9f18219/attachment-0001.htm>