[General] The underlying nature of charge

[David Mathes]

John
As you are aware, charge is what you make it. EM charge, electroweak charge, and quantum charge appear to be quantized and elementary. 
If we consider the photon as charged, where's the mass? Mass/charge ratio is an issue. Can one have charge without mass? 
One has to address the quantization of charge may depend on |1/N| where N is an odd number, positive or negative. However, we still do not have a clearcut and common definition of charge. Well, some folks may. A comparative analysis is rather difficult even with this small set. I almost prefer to do a genealogy rather than a taxonomy.
In terms of ADM charge, it's actually a group of charges. Even so, the theory is somewhat adaptable to any size unit charge which is lucky for us since quantized charge appears to obey the 1/N rule where N is at least an odd number.
In a purely relativistic system, one is either on the geodesic or off the geodesic. That does not give us quantized charge at least not yet. Even so, from a geodesic view point, any off-geodesic action may appear as charge. Thinking about the off-geodesic, one is tempted to look at charge as some sort of relativistic effect.
Could the photon be a transluminal particle with a foot, or perhaps a footprint, in both superluminal and subluminal world but on a very small scale. Where is the foot for the photon?
As to symmetry, in particular the Standard Model (SM) as defined by U(1)XSU(2)XSU(3), CPT violations make the SM appear as a model with a lot of holes, and therefor not a rigorous or full theory. So we are left with the impression that reductionist philosophy has run it's course and we need to look  at emergent properties. Perhaps we have not squeezed the photon enough, and if we could, we might find something deeper inside the photon. 
I'm familiar in a limited way with EM U(1)XSU(2)XSU(3) with conditioning. However, SM experts tell me a higher N for SU(N) is used for electroweak, and gravity, which is not even in the SM, is way up there at SU(9) or so. 
At the quantum level, causality now includes the mere act of observation. To make things worse, observation appears to affect the immediate past. Welcome to the world of quantum relativity. Here's hoping that quantum gravity theory, in particular loop quantum gravity, will permit additional progress. As to langoustines....along the west coast, wild Alaskan Salmon is in season. Right now, it's copper river salmon. A bit pricey but well worth it. Best in the world although the Norwegian Smoked salmon is really nice.
In San Diego, short of going up to La Jolla or eating a hotel, a nice place is 
The Oceanaire Seafood Room
John, just keep writing and don't stop
Regards,
David
 
      From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
 To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Cc: Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; Manohar . <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> 
 Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 8:07 PM
 Subject: The underlying nature of charge
   
 #yiv4811189078 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}<!--#yiv4811189078 _filtered #yiv4811189078 {panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv4811189078 {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4811189078 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv4811189078 #yiv4811189078 p.yiv4811189078MsoNormal, #yiv4811189078 li.yiv4811189078MsoNormal, #yiv4811189078 div.yiv4811189078MsoNormal {margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;}#yiv4811189078 .yiv4811189078MsoChpDefault {font-family:Cambria;}#yiv4811189078 .yiv4811189078MsoPapDefault {margin-bottom:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv4811189078 {margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}#yiv4811189078 div.yiv4811189078WordSection1 {}-->#yiv4811189078 BODY {}#yiv4811189078 BODY {}Dear Richard and Chip,

David is right to ask questions on this - and right to pick up some references, at level, about the way charge spreads within material systems. The work he references follows on from some of my work a couple of decades ago, and I know and have worked with many of the folk in the references. It was a pleasure to read (or re-read in some cases) these yesterday afternoon.

Charge IS complicated, does spread in atoms and in the solid state and we have to try to understand it. This needs a radical new theory which can treat photon and electron on the same footing. That is exactly what I am trying to do: in particular in the paper I have now started writing for the conference on the nature of the photon and electron to be held in San Diego!

I have tried, and so has Martin, to explain why, from the definition of what charge is, that it cannot be lightspeed. I also see your point Chip, that "charged photon" is a kind of way at looking at things - and I agree that it will help a large swathe of people past a particular problem. Unfortunately I can no longer really take part in the discussion on this. Why? Because in trying to engage with this with you it is not just that I do not really fully understand what you are talking about - I no longer really understand what I am talking about either as I try to say things within a language I do not speak. I am trying to use words like "charge" and "mass" and "photon", knowing that as I write them the reader will misunderstand them - or add meanings to them I am specifically trying to exclude. I have been unable, despite trying really hard, to come a point where we agree about just what we are talking about.  I therefore cannot speak this language to you at all anymore and make any sense of the discussion or progress it. This is not a complaint or an accusation. It is just an observation. It has, in fact, been very useful for me to see that many people have problems along these lines - I just cannot hack it in little wordy emails anymore. It has no sense.

You may think this exchange is forwarding progress in some way - but the reverse now seems to be the case to me. We are arguing like ancient Greeks on a beach about the abstract meaning of words ( there is a lot to be said for this of course). We know what charge is experimentally and theoretically. How it is defined in useful theories, in both Maxwell and in QED. We know a very great deal about how it behaves experimentally and that it is not well-described by Dirac particles (as in the Geim and co reference David provided for example, or in my old 1990 Phys Rev paper which I posted to the group). It is these things we need to get to grips with - not arguing about what words mean and who has the right to say what a photon is or is not.

I have a proposition: instead of continuing with this attempt to explain the current position of what charge is and is not within the theories of Maxwell and QED (so what- and folk will anyway disagree),  I will try write a paper explaining just what I think the photon is as a holomorphic wave-function which satisfies the differential equations of my extended theory of electromagnetism and just what charge is within the new theory (in both the way the field in these light-speed uncharged solutions can becomed rectified into uni-directional (radial) electric field and in the way that pinning field to a particular frame can allow masses to be exchanged between field vortices). In other words how charged fermions arise from uncharged bosons. The hope is to get to a proper understanding of the relation between mass and charge and between half-integral spin and charge. I want to calculate such things as the elementary charge from first principles and not just try to talk about what charge is or is not. Fundamentally, I do not think that there is any such thing as a charge which one can isolate as a infinitely divisible fluid, though there is still a debate to be had as to whether one may be able to do this with "rest mass". This makes it meaningless for me to talk about a "charged photon". Talking about charge as an element in itself simply hinders progress when one should properly derive it from space, time and energy. Charge exists, for me, only within the context of charged particles, not as a thing or property separate from these. It should be derived from deeper underlying principles such as the nature of energy and the nature of field.

To further this I have decided it may be useful to try an experiment in paper writing. I have only about three weeks to produce the paper, and must also write three exams in the same period (which usually take me about a week each to write - but I have a good start so this may yet be possible). Nonetheless I could do with some help. The way I usually write a paper is to start writing stuff on paper (with ink!). Have done some of this, Then start trying to draft it inserting an abstract ,introduction, some equations a few diagrams and so on. Then fill it in writing and re-writing many times. I find I often end up throwing away the first bits entirely and completely re-writing the intro. If you are game this can be done in public, within this forum. That way anyone can raise objections, experimental or physical. Tell me where and how I am full of shit. Check my equations and solutions and generally knock me about all over the place. Should be fun!

I have had some (much appreciated) criticism already from some members of this group. David, for example, likened my first attempt at the quantisation paper as not yet a feast - more of a salad. Brilliant! It made me laugh - (and I still am!). he also did not like my electron diagram in POS. He said I should hire a proper graphic artist (Ariane!?). I looked at it and tend to agree. I have produced lots of diagrams so I'm going to post a few of these (on a separate thread) and people can say which ones (if any) do it for them.

 I have had input from four folk so far - David, Martin, Stephen and Tony Booth (not in the group but should be) and have duly studied all my "its and diagrams" (David), "news" (Stephen), symbols and equations (Martin) and potentials (Tony). The scalar is not a potential Tony, it is a scalar field that is nearly everywhere zero - thanks for the insight here and for flagging a problem I was unaware people might fall over - still thinking about how to build this in - so it is not there yet.

Afraid after all that  its not changed much (except that I have put in a bit about tri-locality) - now its a perhaps a bit more meaty (I'm thinking more along the lines of a freshwater langoustine rather than a steak) - perhaps its now a light starter rather than a main course! Anyway I've attached the latest version if anyone wants to rip into it and whet their appetite!

Cheers, John W.From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 2:07 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

Rich and Chip
“how is charge produced in an electron?”

Since we are asking questions....
How is charge produced by a photon?     
How is charge produced within the photon?
How is quantum charge (1/3 e-) produced?
Why is charge so closely couple with mass? Are these essentially one and the same effect?
...Charge by a photon...
I've looked at this a number of different ways. Clearly, curved path of a photon plays a role, perhaps an off-geodesic path that causes some sort of friction or emission. The difficulty is that the photon seems to be self-energizing which leads one to look at a curved photon interacting with spacetime. SRT can be used on a photon normally where the velocity is constant. For any photon, especially a photon acceleration or deceleration, and in the parlance, off-geodesic movement by the photon, GRT is required.
Is the interaction between photon in the longitudinal direction or the transverse direction? After all, the E vector is transverse to the photon's travel. For one cycle of a wavelet, the photon's electric field averages zero. However, if we "stop" the photon and examine by reduction to a small part of the wavelet, we find the electric vector, the magnetic vector, and the Poynting vector,S = E X B.
So if we think for a moment of this photon in an electron, and focus just on the electric field, in a confined circular volume, we might think the electric field vector in the photon is sweeping out all other charged particles including quarks and weak particles. Likewise, we might also conclude no other magnetic particles are permitted. And yet, an uncharged photon which has the E and B field vectors can traverse an electron as if superposition is permitted between the two. 
A photon traversing the electron might be considered  as a photon-photon interaction. Are the following equivalent?
photon-photon - Neutral particle vs neutralphoton-electron - neutral vs chargedelectron-electron - Coulomb charge (repulsion)



Interactions: e-e-
https://www.itp.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/a3233/upload/SS12/TheoFest2012/Kapitel/Chapter_3.pdf

http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~pjh/teaching/phz7427/7427notes/ch2.pdf

[1412.0115] Landau level spectroscopy of electron-electron interactions in graphene
[1012.3484] Electron-Electron Interactions in Graphene: Current Status and Perspectives
The Effect of Electron-Electron Interaction on the Nuclear Spin Relaxation in Metals - Journal of the Physical Society of Japan
Zero bias anomaly in tunnel resistance and electron-electron interaction
Shell structure and electron-electron interaction in self-assembled InAs quantum dots http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9609270.pdf


David



From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

Chip,    Yes, the question should be “how is charge produced in an electron?” Theories that declare that charge cannot travel at the speed of light may need to be reexamined. Hestenes' zitter model of the electron has electric charge traveling in a helix at light-speed for example. Maybe its mathematical “center of charge” travels at less that the speed of light, but this could also be the case in a charged photon model which has a proposed helical motion in a moving electron and this helical motion is at light speed.



On Jun 22, 2015, at 4:42 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Richard I defense of your approach, lets briefly and simply discuss the photon, “charged photon” and electron. Your model suggests that an electron is a charged photon.  The electron has charge.  All the energy in the electron is in the constituent photon. Upon annihilation the photon is released (as a normal uncharged photon).  So that implies that the photon was in the electron and it had charge. Our normal definition of a photon is that it is light speed and has no charge, however when confined, many of us have suggested that the topology of confinement can cause charge.  When confined it would still be traveling at light speed, so that has not changed, the only thing that has changed is that something has caused confinement and charge.  Confinement and charge seem to be linked in that perhaps charge can only result from confinement. But when confined (and charged) we normally call it something else. It the photon still inside the electron?  It seems it is. Because we can release it. So my opinion is that your title, and your paper, are another valuable illustrative view, and that it helps us to comprehend some of the subtleties of the electron. While it may be perceived as a stretch to assign charge to a photon, because it does not seem that it would be possible for a free linearly traveling photon to exhibit charge… your electron model, as many of our models, contains a confined photon, all the energy of the electron is in the photon, the particle made of the confined photon has charge, so under those circumstances I don’t see why you can’t call it a charged photon to illustrate the point.  Chip 





   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150623/a1bca269/attachment.htm>