[General] position

Tue Apr 28 23:39:06 PDT 2015

Hello John and everyone,

I think there is the possibility of propagating a bit of confusion here.

This is a nice analogic model but, being two-dimensional it is a little simpler than the electromagnetic field , which has six, linearly independent components. Technically, in Jackson, the field tensor is a traceless anti-symettric tensor of rank four (these have 6 independent co-ordinates - but also the proper form such that the four-differential operates on them in (nearly) the right way). The underlying reason there are six is that there are six ways to divide one unit vector in space and time by another in space and time. This is because, the field is the 4-differential (a kind of division) of the 4-vector potential, conventionally.

You cannot just simply add Ex and Bx , any more than you can add a length in x to a length in y to get a length in z. They are in different "dimensions".

Regards, John W.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:52 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] position

Chip:

You said the electric field is depicted, but IMHO it’s important to think in terms of the electromagnetic field. People talk glibly about the electric field and the magnetic field, but these are merely two “aspects” of the electromagnetic field. You see pictures of the electric field like this<http://buphy.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/2e.GIF> from this<http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Electricfield.html> web page, but what you’re seeing is electric lines of force. They depict the force that results from the interaction of two electromagnetic fields.

You also see pictures of magnetic fields like this<http://www.gcsescience.com/Magnetic-Field-Current-Wire.gif> but don’t forget section 11.10 of Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics where he says "one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fuv rather than E or B separately". What does the electromagnetic field look like? A spiral! In a flat 2D depiction, you combine electric lines of force and magnetic field lines, like this:

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D081F1.65793C90]

See gravitomagnetism along with NASA and vortices here<http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/>. Electromagnetism is similar to gravitomagnetism. The electron and the positron move like a cyclone and an anticyclone towards one another and around one another, as per positronium:

[cid:image002.jpg at 01D081F3.0AA9CA80]
Check out on vortex particles<http://www.scribd.com/doc/68152826/On-Vortex-Particles-Fiasco-Press-Journal-of-Swarm-Scholarship#scribd> by David St John. I’m pretty sure it’s right. Try to imagine a Williamson/van der Mark electron in the hole in the middle of the spiral thingy above, which exerts a frame-dragging effect on the surrounding space. The electron is a dynamical spinor. When it’s in this space, it moves towards the positron and around it because the positron is another chiral spinor with the opposite chirality. Opposite vortices attract, similar vortices repel,

Regards
John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 28 April 2015 00:45
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] position

Hi Martin, John W, Vivian and all

Attached is a video of an envisioned set of field lines for an electron model.
Red lines are the more negative and blue the more positive ends of the field lines.
There is a spiral shape to the field lines which assumes they have a fixed velocity.  That aspect does not come through completely in the animation.  It is also assumed that similar fields repel each other and that confinement places a limit on the repulsive effect.  The confined photon, which comprises the electron model, is one Compton wavelength, and makes a double loop.  Sorry, the animation does not yet rotate exactly around the center, still working on that one.  It is also assumed that the electron will have an additional “tumble” which is not yet modeled.  The electric field is depicted but the magnetic field is not yet in the animation.

Watching the video, it seems you, Martin, are correct in that this type of model may display ½ integral spin from any direction.

The intent is to attempt to go as deeply into the modeling as reasonably possible, to see if we can learn more of the details.  This seems to be required in order to reach the goal of modeling interactions more accurately.

The color of the lines fades to white as the field strength drops off. (Of course the fields keep going, but become weaker with distance from the transport radius.)

Thoughts, suggestions, and criticism are welcomed.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 3:01 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] position

Dear Andrew,
It is a monumental task to keep track of everything, i have the same problem, but perhaps there are even more things that nobody seems to have mentioned, but can still also be found in a paper published in Annales de la fondation Louis de Broglie in 1997. ;-)
Every fundamental particle must effectively be a single-mode cavity both containing and resulting from its own energy. It is three dimensional by diffraction of the almost infinite wavetrain that is biting its own tail in a single wavelength (mono mode) cavity. Well, actually, two polarization modes are allowed, giving rise to two spin states of the object. It is plausible, but remains to be proven rigorously, that a double loop gives the right equipartition of spin1/2 , simultaneous in all directions if the basic circulation is spin 1. The latter is what john and i put in: the photon, hence the title: Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?

Cheers, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 27 apr. 2015 om 21:00 heeft Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<mailto: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] 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<mailto: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<mailto: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>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150429/3f06a92e/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 44090 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150429/3f06a92e/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 33997 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150429/3f06a92e/attachment-0003.jpg>