[General] double-loop electron model discussion

Sun Mar 15 21:50:12 PDT 2015

Chip, John, Martin, Vivian and others

   The radius of my double-looped-photon electron model, as the electron model increases its velocity in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the photon in a resting electron, is predicted to be R=Ro/(gamma^2) where Ro=hbar/2mc. I think this will also be the case for Vivian’s double-looping electron model since our models are very similar. Such a radius reduction with increasing velocity could as Vivian suggested be a possible experimental test of double-looped-photon models, due to the small upper limit on the size of electrons, measured in high energy electron scattering experiments. So I would like to confirm whether or not your double-looped confined photon model of a moving electron also predicts a reduction in the radius of its helical trajectory in proportion to 1/(gamma^2) based on the constant speed of light of your model's photon along its helical path, assuming that the frequency the photon in your moving electron increases in proportion to its total energy. 

Since my predicted result is independent of the details of the photon model used to construct the electron model, and only requires that the photon follow an open helical path with E=hf and p=h/lambda as well as c=f lambda along this helical path, I think that your electron model will have this same relationship. In fact I think that you assume this relationship in order to derive the de Broglie wavelength of your model along the lines of my derivation. 

  And although John and Martin’s 1997 electron model has toroidal topology, still it seems to me to be (in my current understanding and at the risk of gross oversimplification) essentially a double-looping photon model of radius Ro. So I’m expecting that the radius of its possible photon trajectories will also reduce in a similar quantitative relationship as that of our three other double-looped-photon electron models (which relationship I hope we can agree upon) when their model also has a velocity in the  direction perpendicular to the plane of its central circulating photon for a resting electron, and its central circulating  photon (as well as its other possible closed-loop photon trajectories) moves forward helically at the speed of light along its helical trajectory.

   So this possibly common prediction of all 4 of our double-looped-photon electrons models (R=Ro/(gamma^2) derived from several basic properties of the photon) could perhaps form a basis for an experimental test of a generic double-looped-photon model of the electron. Further experiments might be able to distinguish between the 4 models based on their various models of the photon that may be added to the basic generic double-looped-photon model. 

    Richard  

> On Mar 13, 2015, at 6:25 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at etpsemra.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I wish I had your free time to contribute further to this very interesting discussion. Regarding the reaction of ArXiv towards John W's paper, I refer you to President Eisenhower's farewell from office speech, see below. 
> Eisenhower DD (1961a); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY> (9 min 50 sec to 10 min 50 sec)
> The relevant words are:-
> “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific/technological elite.”
> 
> Despite President Eisenhower's words, public policy has itself become the captive of a scientific/technological elite. The elite are almost exclusively the theoretical physicists who have used mathematics to develop the current standard models.  They have the ear of government policy makers by telling us all what a great job they have done in forming the foundations of modern physics that has led to the great technological revolution the world is currently experiencing. 
> The reality is very different. Thomson's experimental isolation of the electron and the experiments of others such as Rutherford and Chadwick in identifying the constituents of the nucleus has provided the great impetus to our modern technological world. Sure, Dirac predicted the positron before it was observed experimentally. A few "elementary particles" were predicted before they were observed experimentally. Most of the remaining theoretical "findings" have been based upon those theoreticians playing "catch up" with myriad of experimental results, claiming the work was not possible without their models. 
> 
> We are discussing this "rotating" or "double loop" photon model because we don't believe the standard model interpretation of an electron as a "point particle" with properties attached. We aren't alone in not believing in the standard model. Rather we represent a group of people who have sufficient knowledge to mount some form of credible challenge. Those theoretical physics elite who have made their "reputation" on the standard models don't want to lose their status. They use "maintaining a scientific standard" as an excuse for "press censorship". Their censorship is total, something that regimes like North Korea would really like to have. 
> 
> Their ranks swell all the time as the only people who receive funds for serious scientific studies are those who receive scholarships to study some aspects of the standard model. Nobody can progress in this field unless he or she "toes the standard model line". The scientific elite have moulded the reviewer system associated with "mainstream" journals to suit the standard models.
> 
> The standard model proponents have built up such huge momentum that they can't be broken by theoretical arguments. Even with experimental proof of the accuracy of a new theory, it will take a long time and a lot of effort to overcome. (I know because I have done it before. The "experts" distort everything that supports an alternative theory as they try to retain their "elite status".) I have observed the various theoretical arguments forwarded. Many are "missing the point". For a theory to be accepted it should provide a testable prediction that is unique to that theory. Experiment is reality! Theory is only an aid to understanding reality. In itself it is not reality. If a theory has merit it must be able to predict a feature that can be measured by experiment. It should also be unique to that theory and not predicted under the "standard model".
> 
> Chandra is providing a unique opportunity for this rotating or double loop photon model of an electron to be discussed in an acceptable main stream conference. This in itself is a significant advance and one that should be treated as an opportunity to commence forwarding the model as a serious competitor to the "standard model". This will not achieve anything if participants simply present their theory. It needs to be carefully organised with presenters pointing out predictions that are made from these new ideas. In the discussions in this forum you should also forward predictions that can be tested from your theoretical work. I give again a reference to my work on the double loop rotating photon model of an electron. While the mathematics may not appear to be as rigorous as that which some of you use, its important feature is that it makes a number of predictions that can be tested by experiment. To have any chance of being even taken seriously, there needs to be a presentation at the end of the discussion of a number of  predictions that can be experimentally tested which, if found to occur, will separate this model from the "standard model" 
> 
> http://www.la-press.com/a-proposal-for-the-structure-and-properties-of-the-electron-article-a2645 <http://www.la-press.com/a-proposal-for-the-structure-and-properties-of-the-electron-article-a2645>
> 
> I would also like to suggest that you are careful about relying heavily upon the use of mathematics. There is a considerable distrust of the extensive use of mathematics among the general public and many well qualified scientists. As they say "You can use mathematics to prove anything you want". I have seen many examples of this before, as I am sure have some of you. Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) is a classical example. It uses quarks, with fractional charge which has never been detected, and gluons that have never been independently isolated to mathematically "match" properties of the nucleus. When a prediction isn't supported by observation, they "use more (change the) mathematics" to make it match. 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, mathematics is essential. But use it in conjunction with a physical principle to calculate the magnitude of that physical principle. Accurate but non rigorous mathematics that predicts a previously unknown unknown property of a particle. For example the reduction in radius of an electron with increasing energy, beats rigorous mathematics on a point particle to which a wave function has been attached. Both Richard G and I predict this reduction in radius, although we have different expressions for that reduction. But it needs a few predictions like that, which can be tested experimentally, for this study to make progress.  It is only through that type of prediction issued as an experimental challenge to the standard model that will make any headway against the "elite" that President Eisenhower warned could capture public policy. 
> 
> I agree with John W that all particles are composed of rotating photons, in one form or another. I venture so far as to suggest that there are a considerable number of properties of protons, neutrons and neutrinos that can be explained under this double loop rotating photon model. 
> 
> I will do whatever I can to attend the SPIE meeting. At this stage I have extensive commitments over that time and cannot guarantee making it to the meeting. This is the reason why I haven't submitted an abstract for presentation at that meeting. In my opinion, the best way to be taken seriously is use the opportunity Chandra is providing you to come to a consensus on what theoretical predictions this model makes that can be tested experimentally, for which the standard model has no explanation. It is only through that type of result that there is any hope of challenging the "standard model". 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Vivian Robinson
> 
> 
> On 14/03/2015, at 3:31 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> John,
>>    Thanks for your explanations. The link to my American Physical Society presentation abstract is http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR15/Session/Y16.4 <http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR15/Session/Y16.4> . For reference, my article “The electron is a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength" is attached, and is downloadable from https://www.academia.edu/10740682/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength <https://www.academia.edu/10740682/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength> and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272167387_The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272167387_The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength> .
>>     with best wishes,
>>         Richard
>>     
>>        
>> <electron is charged photon with de Broglie wavelength 12 Feb.pdf>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 13, 2015, at 8:54 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Richard,
>>>  
>>> Re your charge and light question:
>>>  
>>> how can matter such as electrons be made of light if the light that electrons are made of is not electrically charged?
>>>  
>>> I think the best way to explain this is to refer to displacement current <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current#History_and_interpretation> wherein Maxwell said light consists of transverse undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena. The photon is a sinusoidal field-variation, rather like a seismic wave. Imagine that as it passes you by, space lurches left by 3.86 x 10⁻¹³m, then it lurches right by 3.86 x 10⁻¹³m. You wrap this photon into a tight double clockwise loop with a twist, such that you have a lurch-left loop which varies sinusoidally, and another lurch-left loop which varies sinusoidally. The latter used to be the lurch right, but it’s been twisted right over. The two sinusoidal loops complement each other - think of a sine wave and an upside-down sine wave fitting together. The result is that you end up with a 3.86 x 10⁻¹³m all-round clockwise skew. You had a field-variation going along at c, and now it’s going around and round at c, the wave is displacing its own path into a closed path, and it’s in such harmony with itself that the field variation looks like a standing field. You call this “knot” of self-bound field-variation a charged particle, and you call this standing field an electromagnetic field. It isn’t totally unlike the gravitomagnetic field, see below, but it’s a 3D skew. Imagine you grab a lattice with your right hand and twist it round clockwise. Then you reach round the side with your left hand and twist it orthogonally clockwise. Then you let go and the  thing stays put like a knot in a tennis net when your ball pocks into it and catches.
>>>  
>>> <gravmagdet[1].jpg> 
>>>  
>>> Where’s the electron’s electric charge if it is not associated with the light that the electron is made of?
>>>  
>>> In the topology, in the configuration of the field-variation, in the winding. Light is alternating displacement current moving linearly at c. When you wrap this up just right into a closed path, the result is what you call a charged particle. Then when you move that, you call it conduction current. But this conduction current is just displacement current going round and round, and linearly along. The electron’s intrinsic spin makes it what it is. It’s a bit like a cyclone. A cyclone’s intrinsic spin makes it what it is. Take away the rotation, and all you’ve got is wind. Do the same for an electron, and all you’ve got is light. And how do you take away the rotation? With an anticyclone. Or with a positron.  
>>>  
>>> Have you considered and eliminated the possibility that there may be two types or expressions of the photon, one uncharged and the other charged? Since the nature and origin of electric charge is not understood at all, I think it is bit premature to dismiss the concept of an electrically charged photon that composes the electron. 
>>>  
>>> I like to think I do understand it, at least in outline, and would reiterate that “the charged photon” will be used as ammunition to discredit everything else you say. IMHO the model needs to match pair production where we start with one or two uncharged photons, and where mass and charge are emergent. Electron-positron annihilation is the reverse process.  
>>>  
>>> I agree with you that the scientific enterprise has its vested interests and that those proposing revolutionary physics ideas  outside the central paradigm are persona non grata to some of these folks. Still, the American Physical Society is willing to give out-of-the-box ideas a forum at their annual conferences. I will be presenting a short talk on the electron as a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength at their annual April meeting in Baltimore. Andrew read the article and noted the derivation of the de Broglie wavelength from the circulating charged photon model. John W. commented that the model has something going for it. I would like to know if you have found any holes in the derivation of the de Broglie wavelength in the model, because it is one of the model’s most notable features. And if the charged photon model of the electron is shown to be wrong, we’ve still learned something. But if such new ideas can’t be proposed and discussed openly and critically in this group, where on earth can they be discussed?
>>>  
>>> Good luck with the talk, yes I think the model is partially correct. But I also think the charged photon is something you really need to work on. Apologies, I haven’t looked at the derivation of the de Broglie wavelength, I’ll get back to you on that. But not for a while, I have to go away tomorrow, and might be incommunicado for a week. As for new ideas, we are discussing them. People are just a little respectful that’s all, and don’t want to cause offence.
>>>  
>>> Regards
>>> John D
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: Richard Gauthier <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 3:53 AM
>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion
>>>  
>>> John D.,
>>>    Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Please help me to understand them better. On the one hand, you have claimed least a couple of times on this thread that matter is made of light. On the other hand you say that the idea that a photon (i.e. light) can be electrically charged is nonsense. So my question to you is: how can matter such as electrons be made of light if the light that electrons are made of is not electrically charged? Where’s the electron’s electric charge if it is not associated with the light that the electron is made of? Have you considered and eliminated the possibility that there may be two types or expressions of the photon, one uncharged and the other charged? Since the nature and origin of electric charge is not understood at all, I think it is bit premature to dismiss the concept of an electrically charged photon that composes the electron.
>>>    I agree with you that the scientific enterprise has its vested interests and that those proposing revolutionary physics ideas outside the central paradigm are persona non grata to some of these folks. Still, the American Physical Society is willing to give out-of-the-box ideas a forum at their annual conferences. I will be presenting a short talk on the electron as a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength at their annual April meeting in Baltimore. Andrew read the article and noted the derivation of the de Broglie wavelength from the circulating charged photon model. John W. commented that the model has something going for it. I would like to know if you have found any holes in the derivation of the de Broglie wavelength in the model, because it is one of the model’s most notable features. And if the charged photon model of the electron is shown to be wrong, we’ve still learned something. But if such new ideas can’t be proposed and discussed openly and critically in this group, where on earth can they be discussed?
>>>    with warm regards,
>>>          Richard
>>>  
>>>> On Mar 11, 2015, at 1:41 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> Richard:
>>>>  
>>>> In an ideal world a consensus would emerge wherein everybody would agree on the electron. This is supported by hard scientific evidence such as pair production and electron diffraction and refraction, the Einstein-de Haas effect, magnetic moment, electron spin, atomic orbitals where electrons “exist as standing waves”, and annihilation to gamma photons. It’s pretty obvious that an electron is a photon going round and round with some kind of spin ½ 720-degree rotation, and that electron mass is the result of this.  When you annihilate the electron with the positron, you’ve got a radiating body losing mass, just like Einstein’s paper <https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/>. What could be more obvious?
>>>>  
>>>> And yet John can’t get his paper on the arXiv, because in this imperfect world there are vested interests who stand four-square in the way of scientific progress. They will use anything they can to discredit an idea. If they can find one little flaw they will magnify it and maliciously claim that the author is some amateur crackpot who has got everything else wrong, and who should be dismissed and disregarded.  With respect, your charged photon falls into that bracket: a photon is not a charged particle, ergo the whole idea is nonsense.  I would urge you to think deeply about this, not just because of yourself, but because of the impact it could have on this group.
>>>>  
>>>> All:
>>>>  
>>>> I would recommend a similar caution. If there’s anything you’re tempted to say that might turn out to be wrong, be aware that there are malicious people out there who will use it against you and the group. It’s one thing to kick things around in group emails, but it’s another thing to include it in a paper. If in doubt, leave it out.  
>>>>  
>>>> Regards
>>>> John
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> From: Richard Gauthier <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 6:18 AM
>>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion
>>>>  
>>>> Hello John,
>>>>    Thank you for your further clarifications. I think that your and Martin’s 1997 electron model (with its ongoing improvements) still leads the (somewhat rarified) field, though Chip’s model may be catching up fast. My charged photon model of the electron seems to be waiting in the wings, although I think it has one or two things going for it, such as its simplicity (but not too simple), its generality (it could accommodate a variety of different photon models), its resemblance to Dirac’s light-speed electron, and its ease of generating the relativistic de Broglie wavelength of a moving electron.  The charged photon model only requires that the charged photon has the photon properties  E=hf, p=h/lambda and c=f lambda,  and move in a closed double-looped path of 1 Compton wavelength h/mc in the case of a resting electron (thus generating zitterbewegung motion and a natural spin of 1/2 hbar). You and Martin have said that your photon with toroidal topology is not charged, but I think you will agree that this model, when moving through physical space, will be closely accompanied by its effective electric charge. And that may be close enough to say that this circulating photon is charged, even though the circulating photon's charge is not moving at light-speed with the photon. A resting electron has “rest mass". The circulating photon composing the electron therefore has “rest mass" (or inertia) also, which it somehow gets by confining itself. I think we all somehow agree about this.
>>>>    As Bohr once said to Pauli, “we all agree that your new model is crazy. Where we differ is whether it is crazy enough.”
>>>>            Richard
>>>>  
>>>>> On Mar 9, 2015, at 10:19 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>> Oh dear me,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am trying to clarify the meaning of Martin and my old model, but I seem just to be confusing everyone more. Apologies for this. I think we should perhaps try to concentrate on saying what our our models mean - and not say what other models mean. At the risk of sowing (yet more) confusion ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, no no (and no).
>>>>> 
>>>>> No: I did not say the photon spin in the electron model was 1 hbar, but that the result was a full twist. To define spin one needs a spin axis and there is no single axis for (the photon) spin. It tumbles, giving a "quantum bicycle" motion. The spin may be seen as being more like 1-1/2 = 1/2 - but this is far too simple and not the way it was put in. It was calculated by integration - not by adding      numbers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No -the differences you suggest are not the differences I see. For me, some differences are
>>>>> 
>>>>> The EFFECTIVE half integral spin comes from the initial photon MOMENTUM , not its angular momentum. This is just R(eff) cross p (as you say for your model). The characteristic R (eff) is, for us lc/4pi precisely because the mode structure is a single wavelength. This R is not in the same space as the fields, but in a space related by division (by differentiation - to be more precise). THe two valuedness comes, for us, because that space is more closely related to complex numbers (scalar aND PSEUDOSCALaR SPACE) than to 3D space or 4D space and time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The reason this is a fermion is that the resultant complete motion is A) double covering, and B) interferes to give a (strong) repulsive      force for same state systems. It is only secondarily that this happens to integrate to give an, overall , half integral spin numerically. The numerics are, once again, not really important for the model. Real photons may have (and, as Chandra pointed out, are measured experimentally to have) any spin. 1 hbar is a limit, not a rule.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No we do (and did not ) put the "Harmony of phases" in: it comes out.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We do not put charge in: it comes out.
>>>>> 
>>>>> All paths in our model are lightspeed. There are no superluminal (or subluminal) paths. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Our electron is not a little donut whizzing around in space (this would be inconsistent with the experimental observation that electrons are, apparently, spherically symmetric) - but in the projected space of the fields and momenta.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Your argument about the increase in the angular momentum would be true for a charged photon on a rigid bar attached to a real axis. This is not the same model as we use. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> In your argument about soin you seem to be mixing the transformation properties of fields with those of material particles. The reason a photon angular momentum remains constant under a Lorentz transformation (not in the 1997 paper but in the 2014 paper not in arXiv) is that, to maintain linearity, the transverse size scales inversely with the energy. This is because fields transform TRANSVERSE ONLY under a Lorentz transformation, not along the direction of motion LONGITUDINALLY ONLY(as do the velocities or momenta). There is a good discussion about this in Stephen's thesis. 
>>>>> What this means is that photons shrink laterally at the inverse rate as their energy-momentum increases - hence keeping a constant angular momentum. This scaling happens for photons (experimentally) for field (relativistically), and also for any electron made of a photon or photons. Real electrons also, do not exhibit a spin about an axis under all circumstances, but only if one tries to measure them (against an experimental axis) - in which case one gets one of two values - spin "up" or spin " down". That two-valuedness is, pretty much, what SU(2) is in the standard model.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On the concept of "charged" photon. Charge is a non-zero field divergence. Such a thing, necessarily, has a rest mass associated with it - just from the integral of field squared in the frame where it is spherical (for Beamon, in the example I just circulated). One then has a rest-massive photon. For me the definition of a photon is that it is rest-massless. The charge, for me comes about because of the local confinement. This means that saying "charged photon" sounds to me like saying "massless mass". This is probably just my problem!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ho-hum ... hope I have not made things even worse!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards, John.
>>>>> F
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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/20150315/ad15fde0/attachment-0001.htm>