[General] Electron Models

Wed Apr 29 10:29:17 PDT 2015

Hi Richard

I would be happy to help create the graphics for these models.  Can you tell
me your preferences regarding colors and the form of presentation you would
like to see for the trajectory, the “energy quantum” and representations of
spin and motion vectors?

Would you prefer video files, or graphic stills? Or both?

We can create the resting, and moving, versions, and we can set the velocity
of motion in the z axis to be any value you feel most properly illustrates
the effects (from 0 to .99999999
c).

Also, if you prefer, we can use quaternion rotations to generate the two
components of spin, and apply a sqrt(2)c velocity limit to the motion of the
“energy quantum” to see if the changes in radius you propose may occur
naturally with motion of the electron, due to this velocity limit and
assumed (required) confinement force.

Feel free to contact me directly so we can work together and get these
graphics generated to meet your expectations.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:11 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] position

Chip,

    In the energy-quantum photon model (for an uncharged spin 1 photon) the
radius of the uncharged energy quantum's helix is R = lambda/2pi where
lambda is the photon's wavelength, and the radius of the charged photon’s
helix (for a spin 1/2 photon) is always lambda/4pi. In the spin 1 photon
model the helix turns once per photon wavelength lambda (helical pitch = 1
lambda) while in the spin 1/2 photon model the helix turns twice per photon
wavelength lambda (so the  helical pitch is 1/2 lambda). In both photon
models the energy quantum's speed is c sort(2) and the forward helical angle
is 45 degrees. The circulating charged photon's wavelength for a moving
electron is found from E=gamma mc^2 = hf = hc/lambda (as in my charged
photon/de Broglie wavelength article) and is lambda = h/(gamma mc, which is
Lcompton = h/mc when electron speed  v=0) and so lambda decreases as 1/gamma
with increasing electron speed. Combining this hidden circulating photon
wavelength lambda=h/(gamma mc) with the 2 photon radius formulas above gives
the spin 1 photon model's radius R1 in its electron model as R1=hbar/(gamma
mc) = 2Ro/gamma, and the spin 1/2 photon model’s radius R2 in its electron
model is R2= hbar/(2 gamma mc) = Ro/gamma where Ro = hbar/2mc is the usual
radius for a resting double looped electron. So the two double-looping
electron models composed of a spin 1energy-quantum photon model or a spin
1/2 energy-quantum photon model both reduce their photon’s radius R1 (for
the spin 1 photon) and R2 (for the spin 1/2 charged photon) with increasing
electron speed as 1/gamma as required from energy considerations. And for a
resting electron (v=0) the two models give their photon radius as R1= 2Ro
for the spin 1 photon model and R2=Ro for the spin 1/2 photon model.
Geometrically as the photon circulates with its axis at radius Ro in both
models, this gives the spin 1 photon model of the resting electron a closed
helical trajectory on a spindle torus (self-intersecting torus) (because
R1=2Ro) while the spin 1/2 photon model of the electron is a closed helical
trajectory on a horn torus (donut with no hole) since R2=Ro. It would be
nice to have a simple 3-D model of both of these photon-electron models of a
resting electron and a moving electron (where the 1/gamma effect is shown
for a moving electron).

     Richard

On Apr 28, 2015, at 4:37 AM, Mark, Martin van der
<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >
wrote:

Hi Chip,

Thank you for this very nice modeling, it is very good food for imagining
things.

Just a loose remark, it doesn’t matter a bit, why make negative red and
positive blue? It is the weirdest convention I’ve seen. Maybe you do this on
purpose just to triggers and not take any convention for granted!

Anyway, what I really like to say with respect to the modelling of the
photon is that the spiral structure around the line of propagation seems to
be fractal or infinite or whatever. It occurred to me that there must be
Some kind of fixed spiral structure that will mimic a spatial shrink by a
factor of gamma while it is only the field strength over that spiral that
changes, reallyl If you have modeled just that, then I think it is utterly
brilliant. It reminds me of a infinitely broadband spiral antenna!!!!
Whatever, you have helped me to gain a very interesting insight, thank you.

The electron animation looks cool to, but in my mind no immediate
observation condenses to something useful yet.

Log spiral antennas:

<http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&ved=0
CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftolijojed.net%2Flog-spiral-antenna-pattern%2F&ei=7m
8_VY2wNYe_PPXtgeAE&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNETagmdpl9_jVAhXKruvRJBCf
qn8g&ust=1430307130240990>
http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&ved=0C
AcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftolijojed.net%2Flog-spiral-antenna-pattern%2F&ei=7m8
_VY2wNYe_PPXtgeAE&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNETagmdpl9_jVAhXKruvRJBCfq
n8g&ust=1430307130240990

<http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ems.elektro.dtu.dk/~/media/Ce
ntre/EMS_Electromagnetic_Systems/english/research/research_projects/projects
/spiral_antenna/spiral_antenna02.ashx%253Fla%253Dda&imgrefurl=http://www.ems
.elektro.dtu.dk/research/research_projects/projects/spiral_antenna&h=141&w=2
94&tbnid=Ag91Xs0bJg6dRM:&zoom=1&docid=0Ucr7bBdv8H0NM&ei=uW8_VYq5KdHbaPe0gMgK
&tbm=isch&ved=0CCQQMygFMAU>
http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ems.elektro.dtu.dk/~/media/Cen
tre/EMS_Electromagnetic_Systems/english/research/research_projects/projects/
spiral_antenna/spiral_antenna02.ashx%253Fla%253Dda&imgrefurl=http://www.ems.
elektro.dtu.dk/research/research_projects/projects/spiral_antenna&h=141&w=29
4&tbnid=Ag91Xs0bJg6dRM:&zoom=1&docid=0Ucr7bBdv8H0NM&ei=uW8_VYq5KdHbaPe0gMgK&
tbm=isch&ved=0CCQQMygFMAU

<http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&ved=0
CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsuperkuh.com%2Fspiralantenna.html&ei=D3A_VYSXNsrZPd
mOgbgL&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNETagmdpl9_jVAhXKruvRJBCfqn8g&ust=143
0307130240990>
http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&ved=0C
AcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsuperkuh.com%2Fspiralantenna.html&ei=D3A_VYSXNsrZPdm
OgbgL&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNETagmdpl9_jVAhXKruvRJBCfqn8g&ust=1430
307130240990

Cheers, Martin

Dr. Martin B. van der Mark

Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare

Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven

High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)

Prof. Holstlaan 4

5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 40 2747548

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: dinsdag 28 april 2015 1:45
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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 <
<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 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 <
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> 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 < <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
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 < <mailto:hudginswr at msn.com>
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:  <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> chipakins at gmail.com
To:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
general-bounces+chipakins=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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 < <mailto:chandra at phys.uconn.edu>
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.natureoflightandparticl
es.org>
mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticle
s.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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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:mules333 at gmail.com>
mules333 at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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.

_______________________________________________
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-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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/20150429/9b16b6b8/attachment.htm>