[General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field

Sat Mar 14 09:33:08 PDT 2015

Dear Chip,

Answers below:

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
>
Maxwell did not believe in photons. If he had, he would have added
something else.

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

The nonlinearity (&/or 4-dimensionality) required for photons is not in his
equations.

>
>
> 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?
>

High energy density distortion of local space into time gives both the
'double loop' and the confinement of the lepton pair. I suspect a wormhole
vortex connects the two and each can achieve independent sustainability as
a soliton.

>
>
> 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?
>

Good question. But, I haven't thought about it yet.

Andrew

>
>
> 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.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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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/20150314/99532877/attachment-0001.htm>