[General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field

[Mark, Martin van der]

Hi all,
in addition to what I said before about the weak and strong force and topology, I should put it into a little more context.
In QED, the electromagnetic force is carried by photons which are exchanged. In Maxwell theory there are the EM-fields.
Likewise, the weak force is about W and Z boson exchange on the one hand and linked field lines (note that that implies a non-trivial topology) on the other hand.
Then for the strong force it is all about gluons on the one hand and knotted energy flow on the other.

This is just to make clear that I understand there is quite some further development required to get to a full and harmonious understanding of all of these aspects.

Cheers, 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.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: zaterdag 14 maart 2015 19:59
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field

Hi Martin

Wonderful!!! Thank you for the paper "A Fields only version of the Lorentz Force Law:
Particles replaced by their fields".  This resolved a few issues for me.

I would like to submit a thought to the group.  When the "twist" as John W calls it, is correctly integrated into the field equations, we suddenly and surprisingly have exactly the confinement force required for a suitable photon to become bound and confined as an electron. Don't yet know if this is just a mathematical fluke, but I strongly suspect it is real.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:28 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field


Dear Chip, Andrew, Vivian,...etc

I am at John's, but currently he is fast asleep. I think I wore him out with a very long session last night and this morning again.
I see some good things happening.
First to Andrew: The photon is a spin 1 boson, but degenerate as they say since it cannot have spin {-1,0,+1}, but only spin {-1,+1}. The reason is that it is rest massless. It's statistics are special too, and depend on the kind of light source you are looking at, for example: blackbody radiation, laser beam or entangled pair. A coherent state, as output by a laser far above threshold has Poissonian statistics yielding random photon spacing; while a thermal light field has super-Poissonian statistics and yields bunched photon spacing. In the thermal (bunched) case, the number of fluctuations is larger than a coherent state; for an antibunched source they are smaller [Wikipedia: Photon antibunching]. In general in QM the symmetry of a state is the product of all relevant ingredients, and this even may make photons look like fermions if the total state is anti-symmetric. In any case the photon is special and it justifies to have a conference on "the nature of the photon".
Then the neutrino. I also think that it is quite strange and special. It may be just a topological fault in space, perhaps with a tiny bit of electromagnetic energy in it... But it should perhaps (likely I would think) in its topology be similar to the electron.
So now Chip's very good 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?
The Maxwell equations are correct, I think, at all levels, but not complete at the quantum level
In any case one seems to need to add the Lorentz Force equations to supplement them (It is the common belief that these cannot be derived from the Maxwell equations, however this is not quite true, see attached paper. The invariance principles and conservation of energy that lie at the basis of Maxwell's equations do generate the force law by Hamilton's variational principle using just and only just the em-fields)

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

1)      Planck's constant is not part of it.

2)      Only recently people have started to take topological solutions of the Maxwell fields seriously (Irvine, Kedia, Bouwmeester, etc). Bateman had identified the framework for it in 1914, but it was not picked up until very recently by Kedia. Rañada has already given solutions in the 1980ies, and calculated an action constant!!!!!!

3)      Nobody can get stable solutions of CHARGED particles as topological knots with Plank's constant in it (yet) (this is the subject of one of my abstracts....)

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?
The force is the result of two things at least: Topology and no channel for dissipation. The topology for the electron must be such that the field lines are all linked and cannot unlink (by their nature they cannot cross). This is to my view a feature of what we would normally call the weak force. To continue on that, knotting flows of energy (instead of linking lines of fields) must then results in the strong force. Quarks do not exist, although the symmetries attributed to them are absolutely correct,  because there is not enough energy for them to be. (this is the subject of another of my abstracts...)

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?
A very valid and important question indeed, and I have to think about it. I do have some ideas, but not solid enough.

Very best, Martin

Oh, that is John just waking up....


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.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: zaterdag 14 maart 2015 15:21
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field

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.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


________________________________
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/20150314/2d644b25/attachment-0001.htm>