[General] double-loop electron model discussion

Tue Mar 3 07:07:30 PST 2015

Hi Andrew,
   That’s a very interesting view that a wormhole connection between a created electron-positron pair could resolve the EPR paradox. I think that you would need to show that the same wormhole explanation would resolve the EPR paradox with other particles that are quantum mechanically entangled. You would also need to show that the appropriate quantum communication between two particles could pass between their connecting wormhole to keep them entangled.
    There are other sub-quantum hypotheses I suppose about how a photon interacting with another photon or an atomic nucleus can create an electron pair. Have you studied them and eliminated them as possible contenders?

> On Mar 2, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Richard, Chip, et al.,
> 
> I thought for a long time about the electron as a self-bound photon, before I realized that I could only make progress when I considered the electron/positron pair as that photon. So, instead of a free photon (a soliton) we must consider 2 self-bound solitons, that can be separated. It was the paraphrased statement(s) from a molecular biologist (who read more physics than I did) that started me on the right path. "Mass and charge are only produced when (& as) the soliton pair are separated." This became the basis of a paper that AJP rejected in 9 minutes from its electronic receipt. However, with that identity of mass and charge in mind and with the recognition of total internal reflection (TIR) as a means of binding light in a "whispering-Gallery" mode, it became clear that the transverse electric field of a bound photon could be 'rectified' by the Goos–Hänchen or Imbert–Fedorov effect <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect> of a photon and give the net charge of an electron. This happens at a unique frequency and orbit size where the negative phase shift exactly equals the phase advance of the photon and the electric field can always point out. If the phase is not correct, then the distortion of space (which affects the refractive index of the path and thus the curvature of the photon) is not resonant. However, this difference in curvature, balanced against the phase shift gives a stable configuration.
> 
> That was the easy part. Nevertheless, I have not yet actually done the full calculations. Someone of the group, with more mathematical ability than I, could do so and coauthor my paper.
> 
> My present conjecture:  What happens to the field confined inside the bound-photon 'orbit'? It is so greatly concentrated by the path curvature that it becomes 'singular' at the center. Nature 'abhors a singularity' even more than it abhors a vacuum! The extreme energy density distorts space and forms a 'connection' between the forming electron and positron. I believe that the distortion is a wormhole and the connection is thru time. Just as the external field lines of a bar magnet are 'closed' thru the bar, I believe that the electric field lines of an electron/positron (the lepton) pair in space, also form and are closed thru time via the wormhole. The lepton pair remains connected (entangled) by this internal structure until the wormhole 'distributes' among all of the neighboring charges. [I don't believe that the wormhole collapses until a pair annihilates.] Since time does not exist within a wormhole, this resolves the EPR paradox.
> 
> In response to Richard's intent "I would like to start a thread that focuses on comparing and contrasting the various double-loop electron models ... to find any common areas of agreement, and any points of difference."
> My original double-loop model assumed that every wavelength is divided in 1/2 and then recombined (nearly superposed). It required a different type of phase shift than normally assumed and was nicely represented by the mobius strip with a 1/2 twist per 1/2 cycle (a full rotation for every wavelength).
> 
> My present concept, using the Goos–Hänchen or Imbert–Fedorov effect, does not require a relationship between a 'twist' and the photon wavelength, since the path curvature provides the necessary phase shift to keep the fields constant. These options must still be confirmed.
> 
> Thus, I have two models with different mobius twist factors. One with a 1/2 twist per 1/2 cycle, and one with no twist at all. I believe that both models would allow the electron to be the lowest level and this structure could have higher levels such as the muon. (However, I don't think that they can be considered excited states.)
> 
> Andrew
> _____________________________
> 
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Richard
> 
> One of the items which intrigued me while studying electron models, was the notion that charge was topologically generated by the spin of the electron.  We only find charge in spin 1/2 particles. Looking at U(1) and SU(2) and the Yang-Mills "phase force" idea, led me to be even more convinced.
> 
> As it turns out, it seems the photon is capable of generating charge topologically, when confined. Of course the simplest method to express that confinement is a monochromatic circular plane wave, certain toroidal models may also work, as long as the negative end of the E field is exposed to the outside.
> 
> Another attraction in starting with the plane circular model, is the relative ease of analyzing wave interference.  It happens that wave interference is very important, because the result is that the effective electrical and magnetic radius is then slightly larger than the transport radius, providing the exact values for the magnetic moment (with anomaly), and the exact electric charge.  Wave interference occurs near the center of the model, making the E field less efficient near the center, and thereby shifting the effective E field radius, and therefore the effective magnetic radius, outwards, while not affecting the transport radius.
> 
> With these values (magnetic moment and charge) defined so accurately in the model, it is still a little puzzling that my models wave interference predicts a value for the fine structure, internal to the electron, of 0.007285993718303 when the actual value (CODATA) is 0.0072973525698.  The difference is 0.1557% but I still feel it is significant, and want to know why the difference is there. Maybe I am calculating the interference incorrectly or incompletely. Or maybe there is another contribution to the fine structure which I have missed. While writing this I may have discovered where my error is.  I kept telling myself that the fields actually extend far beyond the effective RMS radius but falling off in intensity, and I accounted for that in part of the wave interference calculations, but not all of the interference was calculated, because I failed to see its tiny contribution before now.
> 
> Another aspect of my model which is unique and not incorporated in any other model we have seen is the relative phase of the electrical and magnetic components of the wave.  This aspect becomes important when understanding how the photon is confined.
> The electron exhibits many clues to its nature. From this model we can calculate the exact known value for the Quantum Hall effect, by simply running some standard electrical engineering formula using the "voltage", "current", and frequency. This indicates also that an electrical engineering analysis may provide other valuable information.  Using a similar approach we can understand that the electron will display a particular phase relationship between E and M components.  In a simple EM resonant system the E and M components are shifted 90 degrees at resonance.  If we start with a 90 degree phase shift and  look at the double loop configuration of the wave we see an apparent 180 degree phase shift in the confined E and M components, placing them on opposite sides of the electron radius at any given instant. Then it is much easier to see that with the E and M fields on opposite sides, and the attraction between these fields, the issue of photon confinement is simplified somewhat.
> 
> We still have a ways to go, getting answers to many of the remaining questions.  But so far it seems like the group has uncovered some important new understanding which may lead us to a clearer, causal, view of physics, and provide a new basis which can describe experiment more fully and accurately.
> 
> Chip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:47 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion
> 
> Hi Chip,
> 
>    Thank you for your thoughtful as well as personal history comments about your interest in modeling the electron. My own interest in the structure and composition of the electron dates back to the late 1980’s. My spiritual guru gave some new ideas in 1986 about how matter might be formed by a kind of life principle transmitted through subtle vibrating life-energy entities that have both a mental and a physical portion. That idea intrigued me and soon I tried to apply the idea to make a model of a photon as being composed of millions of these oscillating life-particles. I had mainly my intuition to guide me. My photon model soon contained a single circulating energy entity (a superluminal energy quantum) traveling helically at a 45 degree angle with the speed c sqrt(2) and a total momentum along a helical trajectory of (h/lambda) sqrt(2). The energy quantum's helical radius is the photon’s wavelength lambda divided by 2 pi. This result came out of the requirement that the photon model should have its experimental value of spin hbar (or minus hbar) generated by the transverse component of the superluminal energy quantum's total momentum along its helical trajectory, while having the transluminal energy quantum’s longitudinal component of momentum be the photon's linear momentum p=h/lambda.
> 
>     I then modeled the electron as a closed charged photon-like object. I knew very little about the Dirac equation except its prediction of antimatter and that the electron has a 4pi rotational symmetry. I also found that a single closed-loop of one wavelength of a photon (the Compton wavelength h/mc) with the electron’s rest energy mc^2 yields a spin of 1 hbar — twice the value of the electron’s spin. It hit me that making a double-loop of a single wavelength photon produces an electron model with a spin of 1/2 hbar.
> 
>     While making my electron model I realized that it should also have the electron’s magnetic moment M — approximately the magnitude of the Bohr magneton (e hbar)/2m. I set the electron model to have the Bohr magneton for its magnetic moment by adjusting the radius of the closed helical path of the helically moving charged superluminal energy quantum so that its helically circulating charge generates the Dirac equation electron's Bohr magneton for the electron model. (Choosing a slightly larger helical radius generates the electron’s exact experimental value of magnetic moment which is a little larger than the Bohr magneton’s magnitude.)
> 
>     Later I started analyzing other people’s cyclical models of the electron more closely. I found that Dirac had claimed that electrons actually move at the speed of light, but that only a sub-luminal speed can be observed. I found two analyses of the Dirac equation that suggested that the path of a moving electron’s charge can be described as light-speed along an open helix. This gave me the idea to fit my model of the circulating charged photon for a resting electron to this light-speed helical approach. I realized that the circulating photon in the electron model would have an increased frequency f corresponding to its increased total energy gamma mc^2 when the electron moves forward, and that the corresponding wavelength of this circulating charged photon would decrease with this increasing frequency, in order to keep the speed of light of the circulating charged photon constant. The radius of the charged photon’s helix was found to decrease with increasing electron velocity by the factor gamma^2 in order for the photon’s wavelength to decrease as described as the frequency of the charged photon increases with increasing electron speed and total energy. All the math worked out nicely, including the generation of the electron’s spin 1/2 hbar for a slow moving electron from the tangential component mc of the charged photon’s total momentum gamma mc along its helical axis, multiplied by the radius hbar/2mc of the charged photon’s helical axis for a slow moving electron. And I realized that any speed-of-light double-looping photon model for an electron should also follow a corresponding helical path whose radius decreases in the same way with the electron’s increase speed. This is because the result only depends on the relations E=hf, p=h/lambda , and c= lambda f ,  the basic quantum energy and momentum equations for a photon and the equation for wave motion with speed c.
> 
>      Although I knew that any acceptable electron model would have to generate the relativistic de Broglie wavelength Ldb = h/(gamma mv) , I was quite surprised that this result falls out so easily from the circulating charged photon model of a moving electron, where the longitudinal component of the circulating charged photon’s wave vector k yields the wave number that corresponds to the relativistic de Broglie wavelength. Furthermore, this simple result for the origin of the electron’s de Broglie wavelength suggests that the quantum wave functions for a moving electron, which depend heavily on the electron's de Broglie wavelength, are produced mathematically from the waves generated by the circulating charged photon that models the electron.
> 
>        Richard
> 
> > On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:47 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Richard and ALL
> >
> > You asked for a comparison of electron models.
> >
> > Since 1986, while having lunch with a mathematician, Eric Peterson, I have felt that the electron was made up of EM waves, or a photon.
> >
> > Several of us have come to the same conclusion.
> >
> > When I saw your model from 2005 many things started to make sense.  That is why I was so excited and interested to fully pursue the math to try to deeply understand your TEQ model. It was quite informative and inspiring to see your work.
> >
> > Since that time, principally due to an Occam's razor argument, I have returned to the view that TEQ's are not required to model the electron.  While I still feel that it may be possible that TEQ's exist, I do not find, in my view, that it is required for the modeling of the photon and electron.
> >
> > When I later saw John W and Martin's work from 1997 I was again very interested, principally because they were saying the same thing I was thinking, in general.
> >
> > While running the math and testing the model from John W and Martin, it occurred to me that we had to have some sort of photon model to build the electron from. So I produced the simplest model I could imagine which would fulfill what I felt then was the basic criteria.  My view of the basic criteria has since changed due to this collaboration, so I am working now to update my electron model.  However it seems most of the electron model remains intact.
> >
> > The fundamental differences between my model and John W. and Martin's model are as follows:
> >
> >       I found that wave interference may be precisely the cause for the exact value of the    magnetic moment anomaly, and the cause for the exact value for the elementary   charge.
> >
> >       That wave interference, incidentally, produces a new view of the fine structure         constant in the electron.
> >
> > My motivation, in part, to do this work, was because we have to provide an electron model which is simple in comparison, and competes with current theory and models in accuracy, before such a model will be considered a viable alternative.
> >
> > My model currently falls short of some of the goals that I feel we will need, in order for our work to be considered noteworthy and to be eventually accepted.
> >
> > My model also demonstrates the cause for inertial mass, but I think John W. and Martin's model may illustrate the same property. And in fact, all confined photon models may show the same attribute of inertial mass.
> >
> > There are implications of the work we are doing which we also need to discuss.  If Matter is made from light, when you think about its implications on relativity, leads to the existence of a preferred reference rest frame in space, leading us toward Chandra's view and CTF.
> >
> > Working with all of you is both enlightening and inspiring.
> >
> > Chip
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: General
> > [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandpart
> > icles.org <http://icles.org/>] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
> > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:10 PM
> > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> > Subject: [General] double-loop electron model discussion
> >
> > I would like to start a thread that focuses on  comparing and contrasting the various double-loop electron models, mainly John and Martin’s (J/M's), Chip’s, Vivian's and mine, and any others that people may know of, to find any common areas of agreement, and any points of difference. I think we are all agreed that the resting electron in our various models has spin 1/2 hbar. Chip’s model is based on J/M's model. I’d like to ask Chip, if I might, what commonalities and differences exist between J/M’s electron model and Chip's electron model. We can go on from there, if that’s agreeable.
> >     Richard
> > _______________________________________________
> > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> > Light and Particles General Discussion List at chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> <a
> > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n>
> > atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfir <http://atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfir>
> > m=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-n <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n>
> > atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubcon <http://atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubcon>
> > firm=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 chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%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 mules333 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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150303/0f9f6594/attachment-0001.htm>