[General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field

[John Williamson]

Dear Andrew,

Martin is here, but currently fast asleep. I think I wore him out with a very long session last night. I will have a go at beginning to take the discussion forwards, and suggesting some places to look.

I'm please you think that this process (of discussing) "the photonic electron is the basis for "self-consistently redefining the foundations of modern physics." That is exactly what Martin and I have been trying to do for the last quarter century or so and it is so relaxing to have a few more of you to share the fun with.

We need to remember, in doing this, that there is much which is good in physics as it stands- and anything we come up with must be consistent with those existing theories which have served us well (which is what Martin was trying to say in his very terse message yesterday) - even if they have nor proven entirely consistent with experiment in every area.

If there is disagreement with experiment, any new paradigm should fix those disagreements AND show how this moves seamless to an agreement where those theories are valid.

Now this is really hard, of course. Free imagination- but strongly constrained by what we know to be right (the body of well-founded and well-understood experiment) and guided by what we alread know explains large areas of that experiment well- such things as relativity, Maxwell, QM, QED, NIW and so on ...

The currencies in the standard view (by which I mean within the standard model) is that the concepts of "fermion" and "boson" are so important, for example - that the fact that the proton is a fermion means that the quarks in quantum chromo-dynamics (QCD), of which it supposed to be composed, must also be fermions.

This view is, however, strongly challenged by experimental high energy physics. See O Fallon et. al. Phys. Rev. (1977). Yes 1977!. Also the, very accessible, explanation of this by the group spokesman, Krish, in Scientific american May 1979. This is an excellent article "on the spin of the proton". It shows, indeed, thath the quarks as they are in the standard model - as fermions, simply cannot exist. They are simply inconsistent with experiment. This situation, as of 2015, still stands. Please, everyone, have a look at these - especially the scientific american one as this gets properly to the underlying point. It has been a very long time since the fermionic and bosonic statistics ceased being a verb or an adverb and became seen as being an absolute noun. The Experimental evidence, however, is simply against "quarks" being fermions. Eat this!

Also, I have heard stated that the statistics of light in a laser is not Bose but Boltzmann. This is your field some of you guys .. true or false?

In HEP the photon is seen as being a boson, but a peculiar one it that it has only two states as a free particle (seen as left and right (but opposite - right and left in optics convention). What is it? Boson or 2/3 boson?

Discuss!

Cheers, John
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:21 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: P.G. Vaidya
Subject: Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field

Dear Martin;

I feel that 'conservation of spin' may not apply in a relativistic bound-electron case (angular momentum yes, spin no). So, if that is the only experimental basis, then I am not convinced.  I believe that the neutron is a proton plus a deep-Dirac-level (DDL) electron that is stabilized by the presence of another proton and the exchange forces between them from the bound electron. [The DDLs are predicted by the anomalous solution of the Dirac equations and, if they exist, then the spin-spin coupling of the proton and DDL electron is so strong that the hyperfine splitting of these levels may be in the MeV range.]

If this is the case, then the deepest (but highest-energy) DDL, if populated, contains an electron that is orbiting within the proton and is strongly interacting with the proton's quarks and their EM fields. This of course leads to speculation of what quarks really are. As I said, this concept of the photonic electron is the basis for "self-consistently redefining the foundations of modern physics."

Andrew
________________________________
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>> wrote:
Dear Andrew,
I have to point out that experimentally it is really so that the neutrino is a fermion and the photon is a boson, it follows from the conservation if spin.
I am telling you, but you have to put your own energy and work into it to find out that it is realy true, that is the only way you will get the insight.
Most of the physics people try to make you believe is actually true!



Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 13 mrt. 2015 om 17:56 heeft Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:

John D said: "We should “torque” about neutrinos more, because they are more like photons than they’re like electrons."

I thought that I was the only one crazy enough to talk about neutrinos as photons. Or photons as a subset of neutrinos. However, I suspect that this group might have others with the same perception.

I consider neutrinos to be photons from a relativistic bound electron. They should have, in addition to the oscillating E & B fields, an oscillating Mass field. I think that the argument that they must be fermions (to 'conserve' the fermion number of the neutron, electron, and proton) is bogus. They may be fermions and/or bosons, but the argument is bogus. I think that photons can be either, or both, fermions and bosons. Has anyone directly measured the spin of a neutrino (other than by comparison of the number of fermions present)?

If it is a photon from a relativistic electron, then the neutron is an electron plus a proton and that is 'forbidden' speech. However, when the concept of the neutron was 'defined' (set in concrete), there were no charge-density profiles available to point to and defend the bound-electron model. There are now.

This group could be self-consistently redefining the foundations of modern physics.

Andrew

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150314/a886f476/attachment.htm>