[General] double-loop electron model discussion

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Tue Mar 3 09:04:47 PST 2015


Hi Martin

 

Thank you for the comments.

 

In your opinion does the model you and John W. created for the electron
(1997) satisfy this self-energy problem you mention?

 

I have read the Feynman lectures, but it has been a while, so time for a
review.

 

Infinities are quite distasteful, and an electron has spin and a magnetic
moment, so it can be argued that the electron cannot actually be a point,
even if it does react at a single point.

 

Thoughts?

 

Chip

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:40 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

Hi Chip, Richard and Andrew,

1)      Ever read chapter 28 of Vol. II of the Feynman Lectures?

It is about the energy in the field of a charged object, like a football
that has been rubbed against a cat (as physicists do).

That energy goes to infinity at smaller and smaller radius. This leads to
the self-energy problem for a small particle. (The invention of charged
photons doesn’t seem to do this any good)

2)      The interaction of an electron is point-like, it means that it
consists of a single thing, not two massive parts bound by a force (because
that would vibrate at some energy) 

Any electron model must be able to make plausible why this is.

Some thinking to do for you perhaps


Best, Martin

 

 

Dr. Martin B. van der Mark

Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare

 

Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven

High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)

Prof. Holstlaan 4

5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 40 2747548

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: dinsdag 3 maart 2015 17:10
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

Hi Richard and Andrew

 

Andrew, I have been looking at the annihilation reaction of the electron and
positron and considering that the result yields two photons of the energy
0.511MeV. Then assuming the electron and positron are each made of one
photon.

So far, possibly due to my assumptions regarding the nature of a photon, I
have not been able to logically justify splitting the positive and negative
“portions’ of a single photon to create these two oppositely charged
particles. To me the positive and negative portions of the photon are really
made of the same thing, in that they are simply one field vector pointing
toward the positive. The positive and negative ends being part of the same
spacetime distortion.

 

I have attached an updated draft of the electron as a confined photon.

 

Chip

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:08 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

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
<mailto: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
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect> –Fedorov
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
<mailto: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
> atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconf
ir> &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
> atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubc
on> &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-natureo
flightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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-natureo
flightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

 

 

  _____  

The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original message.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150303/77632315/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the General mailing list