[General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear John W,

It looks like we've opened a large can of worms. Let's go fishing!

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:18 PM, John Williamson <
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

>  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.
>

You suggest the course that I have been trying in the cold fusion field.
(See the online version of the *Current Science *Section*:**
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/spl.php?splid=2
<http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/spl.php?splid=2> . *My contributions
are items 1 & 3, with #3 being the pattern I recommend,  "start with what
is known and extend it to a new understanding.")

>
> 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.
>

Cold fusion (CF) has disagreed with decades of experimental results (in a
different energy range). However, it validates a solid theoretical base
that has been ignored because there is no experimental evidence to support
it. Strange that physics rejects the anomalous solution to the Dirac
equations because there is no supporting experimental data and then ignores
the supporting data because it has rejected the solution that predicts
them..

>
> 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 already know explains
> large areas of that experiment well- such things as relativity, Maxwell,
> QM, QED, NIW and so on ...
>

The photonic electron model has fewer enemies (only academia which thinking
is strongly constrained by what it knows to be right) than does cold fusion
(academia, the petroleum industry that will lose billions of dollars a week
in profits, and national governments that will no longer be able to
control/tax segments of their population). But, it also lacks the obvious
economic and ecological benefits, if it is successful.

>
> 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, that 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!
>

It is interesting that I object to the neutrino being defined as a fermion
and these papers (which I'll have to read on Monday when I get back to the
University) are challenging the idea of quarks as fermions. I would contend
that the quarks could be fermions, but still have characteristics that
greatly differ from the 'formula'.

>
> 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!
>

The results of interference effects indicate that photons act as either or
both fermions and bosons (to be presented in August).  Since a photon can
be broken up into two fermions, must it always be considered a boson. (At
what point does it stop being one?) If so, then are not a pair of s-orbital
electrons in the same atomic level likewise to be considered a boson?

Andrew



>
> 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> 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> 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/f95cae0a/attachment.htm>