[General] Axes plots

Thu Jun 25 09:15:39 PDT 2015

Hi John and others,

   Thanks. It seems from the wikipedia article that Poincare stresses are still necessary in the latest understanding of the rest mass of the electron, and in getting m=E/c^2 rather than m=4/3  E/c^2 . Does your pivot play the role of the Poincare stresses or are they two different things? It seems like the Poincare stresses act like a negative mass, in order to bring down the 4/3 to 1? The Poincare non-electromagnetic stresses are what supposedly keep the electron from exploding due to Coulomb repulsion, while I understand that the pivot keeps the photon traveling in a circle to form an electron (or in a helix as seen from a moving frame?) instead of a straight line. Maybe the two are related if not the same. Maybe the electron’s energy quantum contains the Poincare stresses necessary to cause the electron to become point-like again after spreading out wavelike and passing through a double slit. Or maybe Poincare stresses will be no longer required in a deeper quantum understanding of electric charge (Poincare stresses were basically pre-quantum weren’t they?) 

    Richard

> On Jun 24, 2015, at 9:02 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Dear Richard and everyone, 
> 
> Yes, that is better. The internal momentum of the field, however, does not account for everything either. The electron rest mass is, and always was, a sum of several components. Mass from field and mass from "poincare stresses" amongst them.
> 
> But there anyway remains a problem. This has been discussed, famously in the Feynmann lectures in physics in the context of field momementum and field energy - where he looks at the relationship between field momentum and field rest-mass-energy and finds a discrepancy. This has been called the 3/4 problem or the 4/3 problem ... where e(EM) = 3/4 m c^2.
> 
> You can start here .. but theref to Feynmann is better ..
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass>
> 
> This needs fixing too.
> 
> Regards, John.
> From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 2:15 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] Axes plots
> 
> John W and others,
>    In the spirit of rethinking fundamentals, I propose that for a single particle like an electron, “rest mass” is no longer a useful concept, rather it is even misleading, since an electron is never measured to be “at rest” .  Rather for an electron, “internal momentum” mc=0.511MeV/c is more descriptive for the invariant quantity mc in the relativistic mass-energy equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 associated with relativistic particles. For an electron, mc = 0.511MeV/c is the magnitude of the internal momentum of the looping or double-looping photon in our models of a “resting” electron and is invariant in all Lorentz frames, p is the “external” momentum of the electron, and E is the total energy of the electron (or the photon composing it).
>      Richard
> 
>> On Jun 23, 2015, at 9:33 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 12:17 PM
>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray; David Mathes
>> Subject: Re: [General] Axes plots
>> 
>> Dear John,
>> 
>> We need to get this group together for a week or more of discussions. I have so much to learn. Each answer produces more questions. I am afraid not to ask them because they may not come up again and I will have lost an opportunity for obtaining important information.
>> the 'quarter turn' would probably require a whole lecture to bring me up to speed. It may relate to 'up' and 'down' in QM being orthogonal rather than along the same axis. Explained in other email
>> I agree with "integer wavelengths to minimise energy." However, is this true for the case of the 'untwisted' circularly-polarized photon? It- too is twisted - it is not turned though
>> Aligning superposed spin axes of in-phase photons should increase the field energies and therefore the total energy? I mean aligning the axes of twist and turn - not aligning two photons.
>> This is much more interesting than writing papers or creating exam questions. However, we do have those obligations. Don't remind me - I'm on holiday remember!
>> Andrew
>> __________________
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:35 AM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>> 
>> No. The twist comes form the base equations  - its not a "knob"  but a consequence of the underlying thing the differential equations are describing. Each differential is a (precise) quarter turn in some space. Further, you need to join at integer wavelengths to minimise energy. Higher twist objects (2 - 3 ans so on) also need to minimise energy. Physically this means aligning spin axes. there are actually only so many real dimensions to go round (despite the idiocies of string theory).
>> 
>> Regards, John.
>> From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 11:28 AM
>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray; David Mathes
>> Subject: Re: [General] Axes plots
>> 
>> Dear John W. and all,
>> 
>> If you start with a circularly-polarized photon, give it one full twist per wavelength (to 'unwind' it), and then close it at any point, could you not create the out-going E-field that we attribute to the electron or positron? However, since there is no reason to join the twisted photon only at integer wavelengths, then the electron would not have fixed properties. The only thing fixed would be the amount of twist per wavelength. What causes the photon twist in any of the models and, if the above model is correct, why don't we have particles with a continuum of charge (and spin?) values?
>> 
>> Andrew
>> __________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:19 AM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
>> Here are some using a set of axes, as in the POS paper circulated earlier
>> 
>> Torfieldrock just shows three views of a positron. 
>> 
>> Torfieldsinglemin0.4 is just a simple double loop. Not too busy.
>> 
>> Trockrevert is similar to the first, but with a glass torus.
>> 
>> Cheers, John.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atmules333 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 <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 atmules333 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 <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 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 <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 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 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=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/20150625/0c6f2222/attachment.htm>