[General] Photonic electron and spin

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear John W. and John D.,

Have you considered that a 'stationary' electron's spin could be about the
time axis?  It has no net direction in space until it moves or has a force
applied to it. At that point, the electron field (photonic) is
relativistically distorted and has a 3-D spin component that precesses
about the velocity (or force or field) vector. That precession determines
the deBroglie wavelength (and other attributes?).

Andrew
__________________________
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:09 AM, John Williamson <
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Hi John,
>
> Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of
> quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that
> fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin
> "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either
> clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL
> angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your
> measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values
> you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for
> which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum
> (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the
> spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees.
>
> What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when
> you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens.
> Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect
> to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The
> simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and
> the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a
> tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin
> and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a
> characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for
> half-integral spin (hbar/2).  This is encouraging, but not the whole story.
> The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space
> (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen
> atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A
> free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must
> tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a
> frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so?
> Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is
> where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in
> 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what
> would such a thing do if one tried to measure it?
>
> This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in
> space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not
> fully consistent with (all of) experiment.
>
> Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space,  ( roped to
> one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt
> track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can
> aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as
> they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational
> inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the
> Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are
> robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a
> spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they
> may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for
> a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track
> moves under their feet. Not  very interesting. Lets give the track a
> rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They
> walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a
> rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin
> their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the
> whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track
> the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom
> counter-clockwise.  What happens now depends on whether the track supports
> torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole
> track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support
> torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong,
> directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to
> minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to
> Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent
> with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron.
> It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if
> one measures the spin.
>
> Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there
> is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic
> self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any
> particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the
> flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect
> to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time -
> whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two
> frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz
> transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the
> other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space
> or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is  constant round
> the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames).
> It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense
> to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow
> of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have
> interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well
> enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often
> in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in
> this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this.
>
> This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not.
> Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a
> simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple
> single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple
> momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial)
> electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference
> and we need to stick to them and test our models against them!
>
> Cheers, John.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM
> *To:* John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg
> *Cc:* Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matoušek"; A. F. Kracklauer;
> Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De
> Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin
> van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel
> Ošmera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins;
> Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com
> *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin
>
>    John
>
> Sorry I haven’t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is
> nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin
> angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We
> made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there,
> and it ain’t cheese. And like the “quantum bicycle” is doesn’t have to be
> spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms
> outstretched like you’re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your
> arms. Only the photon isn’t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be
> moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids
> in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn’t good enough,
> because of something is rotating on two axes it’s isn’t rotating clockwise
> or anticlockwise, it’s rotating like this:
>
>
>
> [image: ring_tor1_anim].
>
>
>
> Every which way. But there’s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is
> why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard
> scientific evidence says it is.
>
> As regard field and force, IMHO there’s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx
> By Bz. It’s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn’t
> work because you need two fields to have a force*. It’s missing the very
> essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the
> surely obvious fact that they’re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged
> space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by
> suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one
> another. They aren’t doing this. They *are* photons. 511keV photons with
> a toroidal topology. And see this: *”the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J
> cross B is a product of fields E and B”  *There is no field E or B! Those
> are the forces that result from field interactions.
>
> Darn, I have to go. I’ll get back to you some more later.
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
>
>
> * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment
>
>
>  *From:* John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM
> *To:* John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> ; Vivian Robinson
> <viv at etpsemra.com.au> ; Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil
> Matoušek" <matousek at fme.vutbr.cz> ; A. F. Kracklauer
> <af.kracklauer at web.de> ; Adam K <afokay at gmail.com> ;
> ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
> <chandra at phys.uconn.edu> ; Hans De Raedt <h.a.de.raedt at rug.nl> ; David
> Saint John <etherdais at gmail.com> ; Fiona van der Burgt
> <fionavdburgt at gmail.com> ; Jonathan Weaver <Jonathan.Weaver at glasgow.ac.uk>
> ; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> ; Mayank Drolia
> <er.mayankdrolia at gmail.com> ; Michael Wright <mpbw1879 at yahoo.co.uk> ; Nick
> Green <nick_green at blueyonder.co.uk> ; "prof. Ing. Pavel Ošmera, CSc."
> <osmera at fme.vutbr.cz> ; Rachel <QKB.Enterprises at gmail.com> ; Ralph Penland
> <rpenland at gmail.com> ; Robert Hadfield <Robert.Hadfield at glasgow.ac.uk> ; robert
> hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com> ; Stephen Leary <sleary at vavi.co.uk> ; Timothy
> Drysdale <Tim.Drysdale at glasgow.ac.uk> ; wfhagen at gmail.com
> *Subject:* RE: Photonic electron and spin
>
>  Hi Guys,
>
> Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D)
> than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself).
>
> I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not
> get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we
> are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start
> getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force.  They
> are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but
> this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the
> electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors),
>
> o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a
> 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential
> (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant
> indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge
> which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector
> quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it
> is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a
> field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can
> squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity
> of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible
> (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields
> with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that
> symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where
> this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand
> what the gauge is and what it is for.
>
> You can see the difference simply because the field has six components,
> not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz.
> Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other
> inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general
> have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more
> complex particles of the sort we wish to describe.
>
> Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field?
> Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are
> products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the
> paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on
> FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case
> of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and
> B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of
> the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of
> Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times
> four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index)
> vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> John.
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM
> *To:* Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg
> *Cc:* Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matoušek"; A. F. Kracklauer;
> Adam K; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De
> Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan
> Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green;
> "prof. Ing. Pavel Ošmera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield;
> robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen at gmail.com
> *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin
>
>    Andrew:
>
> Viv’s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again
> at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative
> measure of local motion.
>
> Viv/Andrew:
>
> I’d like to stress that the photon is an *electromagnetic* field
> variation, and the electron has an *electromagnetic* field. The thing we
> call an electric field isn’t really a field, it’s the linear force that
> results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about
> this, but I really do think it’s important.
>
> All:
>
> I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can’t say what a
> photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there’s not much point talking about
> selectrons if you don’t know what an electron is. Or much else for that
> matter.
>
> Regards
> John
>
>
>  *From:* Vivian Robinson <viv at etpsemra.com.au>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM
> *To:* Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil
> Matoušek" <matousek at fme.vutbr.cz> ; A. F. Kracklauer
> <af.kracklauer at web.de> ; Adam K <afokay at gmail.com> ;
> ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
> <chandra at phys.uconn.edu> ; Hans De Raedt <h.a.de.raedt at rug.nl> ; David
> Saint John <etherdais at gmail.com> ; Fiona van der Burgt
> <fionavdburgt at gmail.com> ; John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> ; John
> Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> ; Jonathan Weaver
> <jonathan.weaver at glasgow.ac.uk> ; Mark, Martin van der
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> ; Mayank Drolia
> <er.mayankdrolia at gmail.com> ; Michael Wright <mpbw1879 at yahoo.co.uk> ; Nick
> Green <nick_green at blueyonder.co.uk> ; "prof. Ing. Pavel Ošmera, CSc."
> <osmera at fme.vutbr.cz> ; Rachel <QKB.Enterprises at gmail.com> ; Ralph Penland
> <rpenland at gmail.com> ; Robert Hadfield <Robert.Hadfield at glasgow.ac.uk> ; robert
> hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com> ; Stephen Leary <sleary at vavi.co.uk> ; Timothy
> Drysdale <tim.drysdale at glasgow.ac.uk> ; wfhagen at gmail.com
> *Subject:* Re: Photonic electron and spin
>
>  Dear Andrew and all,
>
> I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under
> this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at
> problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have
> had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my
> ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved
> and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the
> physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most
> in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What
> some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We
> know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric
> and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed
> appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of
> the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon
> are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length
> that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of
> conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out.
>
> With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an
> electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I
> wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the
> Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics
> Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two
> revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of
> whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is
> a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half
> hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the
> Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the
> electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its
> radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and
> magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the
> electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength,
> positron is mirror image of electron.
>
>
> http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU
>
>  Figure 12  gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's
> spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends
> upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are
> "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised
> because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the
> observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until
> its spin is measured.
>
> I hope this helps your understanding.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Viv Robinson
>
>  On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     Dear Richard,
>
>  You answered my request for a reference to your statement  "A non-moving
> electron’s spin is undefined until it’s measured with respect to something,
> and even then I think it has to be moving" with:
>    "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like
> spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the
> quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction
> of some measurement axis."
>  I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation
> that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct.
> I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would
> appreciate it.
>
>  I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of
> discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the
> mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be
> fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the
> deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear
> particles and physics.
>
>  I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the
> point.
>
> The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is
> not a single-cycle creature. It *has* been made that way in special cases
> with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7
> (or more) cycles long.  Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just
> the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon
> about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on
> a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one
> view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose
> itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform
> isotropic *E*-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The
> inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a
> worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my
> papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ")
> will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process.
>
>  This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges,
> from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy,
> momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that
> there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole
> eventually  breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges
> independent.)
>
>  When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular
> momentum in *all* directions. Since the photon is traveling in all
> directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a
> torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light
> speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of
> motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the
> electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the
> relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about  a preferred axis
> (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the
> distance traveled at velocity v  during a single precession cycle. This
> then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and
> quantization of the atomic-electron orbits.
>
>  Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed
> mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of
> matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all
> electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and
> begins with the photon.
>
>  Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/5211ac81/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ring_tor1_anim[1].gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 268185 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/5211ac81/attachment-0001.gif>