[General] Nobelist dialogue

Wed Feb 18 21:13:07 PST 2015

Dear Richard,

I can see why your ideas were rejected by the 'reader'. If he has no more
time than to scan the paper, he will find some good things and some major
blanks. The blanks will stop him from looking closely at the good things.

I found the good things because I was looking for them. I will describe
below, some things that I found based on my models of the electron and
photon.

I particularly like your derivation of the deBroglie wavelength and the
fact that you included his derivation along with yours. This concept is so
fundamental to QM and yet, because it has a classical basis (and can be
understood by high-school physics students that have had calculus), it
'cannot be mentioned'. This is just like the classical word 'resonance'.
Instead of saying the internal resonance of a body, QM must talk of quantum
states. Heisenberg's matrix theory (equivalent to the Schrodinger
equations) is just the classical solution of a set of simultaneous-linear
equations defining the resonances of a system. Diagonalizing the matrix
provides the total resonance and resonants of the system. (We will let the
mathematically minded of the group phrase that concept properly.)

The circular integration about a closed orbit in a uniform 'field' always
gives a zero result. However, to close the orbit, it is necessary to have
all the conditions equal at the starting and ending point. These different
conditions (classical) provide the quantum numbers that are so 'magic'.
They define the resonance conditions. The electron is *not* a 'cloud', it
is a finite 'body' (but not a point source). The solution to the
time-independent Schrodinger equation is a probability cloud that simply
identifies properties integrated over all time. This is not an electron.
The electron-spin axis should be identified as the source of the helical
nature. The deBroglie wavelength, as the pathlength between points of equal
angle (phase), is the velocity-dependent description of the electron
momentum and much of its nature. It is not related to a dimension of the
electron, but to a relativisitic property of its motion. I do not believe
that the charge of the electron follows a helical path, the precession of
its spin-vector defines that. And, your description gives a nice basis for
understanding that. I would like to see this put into the terms of a
wrapped photon (moving at slightly less than c in free space) parts of
which are forced to exceed that velocity as the whole electron moves. The
mass of the electron is the proportionality between the force to cause
acceleration and the acceleration required to change its velocity and
momentum (m = F/a = d(mv)/dt  / dv/dt = d(mv)/dv). Mass shows up physically
as a distortion of space. The photon has mass also, but because it is
alternating (as the field energy), it has no measureable DC mass (only
mass-equivalent energy). [The neutrino has the same condition; but, I
believe that it also has an AC mass component that is independent of field
strength.]

The blanks in your papers (from a quick scan) stem from an initial reaction
to the concept of a charged photon. Where do you ever say that a photon is
'charged', but 'net neutral' (as a neutron is charged, but 'net neutral').?
Somehow, in the creation of the electron-positron pair (always the pair),
the 'charge' is separated. I will be describing the potentials (not charge)
of the photon in one of my papers at the conference and h*ow* the AC fields
are 'rectified' to become the DC fields (charge) of an electron and
positron. I won't be able to start a draft of my contributions until
mid-April when I have 2.5 papers due for another conference.

All of us have pieces of the puzzle. until we assemble them all in a
multilayer and complete approach, I do not believe that many people will
pay attention. I propose the we lay the foundations for a Light / Matter
Consortium (LMC?) to write and publish a series of joint papers (and John D
a book) that has the outline and successive levels of development and
detail. The SPIE conference proceedings will provide fundamental references
for the pieces (ours and others) in a single location. We can tie-in the
earlier papers on the nature of the photon as starting point. I hope that,
by the end of the meeting, we will be able to have an outline of all the
important points for the photon, the electron and the transitions between
them (both ways). I hope to have published the story of electron-positron
annihilation by that time.

Andrew

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:

> John and all,
>
> A short dialogue follows that I just concluded with a physics Nobel
> laureate. Comments are welcome.
>
> Hello Professor,
>    A Ph.D. student at IQC suggested that I might meet you this summer at
> IQC to discuss a rather out-of-the-box idea -- that the electron is a
> charged photon having the de Broglie wavelength. I have an article on this
> topic which I will be presenting at the April APS meeting in Baltimore and
> at the SPIE photonics conference in San Diego in July at a session on "What
> is the photon". Currently the article is on academia.edu at
> https://www.academia.edu/10527918/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength and
> I have attached the article for your convenience.
>   Is this a topic that you would be interested in discussing?
>
> Dear Mr.Gauthier,
>    If your theory can explain clearly (as shown rather unambiguously by
> experiment) why the electron is  a fermion and the photon a boson, I think
> a discussion might be worth while, otherwise not. With best wishes,
>
>
> Hello Professor,
>     The short answer in my charged photon hypothesis is that a charged
> photon (with charge + or - e) is a fermion while an uncharged photon is a
> boson. So there is zero contradiction with unambiguous experiments about
> the electron (my hypothesized charged photon, with charge -e for an
> electron and +e for a positron)  being a fermion and the usual uncharged
> photon being a boson. The next level answer is that the idea that an
> electron could be a charged photon was apparently missed by de Broglie and
> others when de Broglie formulated E=mc^2=hf for a resting electron and E=
> gamma mc^2 = hf for a moving electron. This is the energy equation for a
> photon that has a wavelength lambda = h/(gamma m c), and that may be
> helically circulating as mathematically suggested by Hestene's and Rivas'
> analysis of the Dirac equation (referenced in my article) which predicts a
> light-speed helical motion of the electron's charge, and is supported by
> Dirac's own claim that the electron moves at light-speed but only
> sub-luminal speed is detected for it. It's a short step to the de Broglie
> wavelength h/(gamma mv) for the longitudinal wavelength of the light-speed
> helical charged photon model of the electron, and the proposal that quantum
> wave functions for the electron are generated by this model.
>
> Dear Mr.Gauthier,
>     I'm afraid that our ideas about what constitutes a persuasive argument
> in physics seem to be so different that I doubt whether a meeting would be
> useful.Sorry,
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150219/52927109/attachment-0001.htm>