[General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field

[Chip Akins]

Hi All

 

Vivian makes some very good points.  But, given the members of this group, I
don't think the frustration of dealing with the established will deter us
from this quest. It is however a deep frustration.

 

This and worse, has been felt by many scientists in our past as well. But it
does not stop us. We are a scrappy lot.

 

Good that we understand it and can attempt to develop a strategy to overcome
it.

 

One such strategy may be simple logic.  

 

Let me go a bit further in that vein.

 

Any comprehensive EM field theory should explain and define what we can
observe of the behavior of EM fields. Planck's constant and spin is a clear
observable in the microscopic realm of EM fields. Can anyone show how
Planck's constant is fully defined in, or directly derived from, Maxwell's
equations? Even in the full set of 20 equations from the 1863 to 1865
publications? If not, then it follows clearly that the field equations are
incomplete.  Our task then is to suggest a complete version of the field
equations.  One that agrees with experiment.  This is a critical step in
developing a new and more solid foundation from which to build.

 

We have all seen the elegance of the double loop photon model of the
electron, but as we build those models, we face issues with the foundations
we are working from.  There seem to be "small" details missing from our
physical foundations.

 

Even crippled, by starting from an incomplete foundation, we have been able
to find many answers. We have, however, seen what can happen when an
elaborate theory is built on incomplete foundations.  We don't want to
create another theory full of inconsistencies, and unnatural infinities,
which requires special cases and massaging, to force fit the answers to
nature.

 

While working on the puzzle, we built models of the electron from the
photon.  Once we have built those models, it becomes apparent that there are
forces in the photon and electron which are not accounted for in our field
theories. Luckily we are able to start with the simple stuff, photon and
electron, and still see there is something missing.  John W and Martin, and
in ways, others of us, have addressed some of the missing stuff. 

 

What we are proposing is a fairly substantial overhaul of an established,
and well backed theory, the Standard Model. In order to be successful we
must provide answers. We must provide better answers and solutions than
offered by the theory we are attempting to replace.

 

Some of the things we will find that we need to propose in the theoretical
foundations will have profound implications in the nature and structure of
the Standard Model.  For some, perhaps many, the Standard Model meets all
the requirements to be classified as a religion.  It is the belief system
upon which their entire life and livelihood is based.  The more prestigious
their position in the scientific community supporting the Standard Model,
the more they would "feel" any shaking of that foundation.

 

So now my questions to the group.

 

How many of you feel that Maxwell's equations (the full set of 20 if you
like) are incomplete in their representation of microscopic field behaviors
at the particle level?

 

And, if you feel they are incomplete, what exactly do you think is missing?

 

For each of you with an electron model, to what do you attribute the force
allowing confinement of the photon, into the double looped electron
configuration?

 

And finally, we have an unprecedented availability to review experimental
data and to correlate our theories with that data to check their validity.
Are there any specific experiments that we need to carry out to enhance our
knowledge and prove any of our concepts?

 

Chip

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 6:48 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: P.G. Vaidya
Subject: Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field

 

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.natureoflightandparticl
es.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/20150314/02e888ca/attachment-0001.htm>