[General] double-loop electron model discussion

[Mark, Martin van der]

Hi Viv,
Perhaps a single atom tip made of ferromagnetic material in high electric and magnetic field can help to pin down enough of the position and polarization direction of the electrons that may be accelerated from it. I cannot think of anything better right now. Also I do not necessarily believe that it will be good enough to be useful, but that is what we need to think about together.
Best regards, 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 John Williamson
Sent: donderdag 19 maart 2015 6:26
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

Hello everyone,

Thank you for that Viv. Good for you.

I had on my to-do list yesterday sending an email to Richard (and the group) about the scaling of the electron size and the electron field and the consequences of electron spin. It was the only item on my list not completed and hence went to the top of the list today. I got up about an hour ago (before Martin went to bed a few minutes ago) - and am taking over the Scots 24 hours a day work programme (where 2 of us is enough - even if one is a Dutchman - apparently we have similar work-ethics). Imagine my delight when you had already addressed at least half of what I wanted to say. I agree with, very nearly, all of what you say. I am especially, thankfully and strongly in agreement that ONLY experiment hacks it. So to work - firstly, back to the theory, then to experiment later.

Yes .. the lateral scaling is not 1/gamma squared relativistically. If the thing is mechanical there is no lateral scaling, If it is field, there is a lateral scaling only (and field increases) .. but it goes as the same factor as the length reduction (or the frequency increase). If it is rotational there is a decrease in radius by the same factor - just as Viv says. The cross section over which the integral must be made, therefore would appear to be inverse-square at first sight (for a relativistic rotator), but be careful - the field has a particular one dimensional direction at each space-time point in any frame. This is especially apparent if one thinks of a linearly polarised photon-ruler-clock - at which point it is not rotating at all. All these things must work (and we must understand them), simultaneously. All these scalings must apply LINEARLY in order for the integrated energy to be according to E=h nu ... as is observed in experiment for both photons AND electrons.   I am going more into the maths of this in one of the papers I am writing for San Diego.

Coming back to the Martin/John model. It is just not so that there is a common scaling for both the bits coming towards you and the bits going away. This picture is far too simple.

Imagine one goes to a red-shift factor of 2. That is the electron has a mass of double its rest mass. All rulers and clocks scale by a factor of 2 or 1/2 for the difference back and forth between "lab": and  "electron" frames. For the electron, because it is internally accellerated (it is going round and round in circles guys!). Many frames apply. Some bits look blue-shifted to an observer -- others (would) look red. In the lab one does not see the red-shifted part. It is still, and always, moving away from you at lightspeed. One sees only the blue-shifted half. This is now half size (just as a photon). Ergo - as you try to look harder at the 0.2 picometre electron it (the blue shifted bit that hits you  (not the red shifted part outside your measurement frame - it is the "gon") appears to shrink. At this speed, in the lab it looks like a 0.1 picometre electron. This is the argument given for the point-like nature in our 1997 article. Coming back to rotating electrons (or photons) the lateral shift, as governed by the rotation horizon, is also a factor of 2. This is what Viv was saying - as related then to his model.

Ok now to experiment. Experiment shows, till now, a point-like electron. As I said before this means more that it is an inverse square interaction of a single object than that it is a point. Now (and this is where I may have been wrong before) if one could localise the electron at a precise point, and hit it with another electron - again precisely localised - one may see structure in the electron. This is especially so if one could orient it - for example with a strong magnetic field. Unfortunately the scale of electron structure is smaller than the atomic scale by three orders of magnitude or so - so even for John Weaver (and he is as good at this sort of thing as it gets- experimentally)- that would present a challenge.

Coming to Viv's experimental proposal. For those who do not know my background, my doctoral thesis was on measuring the inner shape of particles at CERN. Indeed, one could try an electron-electron scattering experiment. The point of closest approach (for a precisely head-on collision) is about L/2 where the lateral, rotational, apparent size is L/4pi (as in our 1997 paper). where L is the relativistic electron size (0.1 picometres in the above). Some of our models (most of them) would then show a structure in that one would see more large-angle scattering for non-point electrons - just as Viv says. The best energies to do this experiment are in the trans-relativistic range - up to a few MeV then. Not CERN size. Bijou.

Now that sounds good - but I do not think one would see it for our model in that simple experiment. Why- because there is no centre-of-mass for the electron to orbit about. It does not look like a little spatial donut. It will appear spherically symmetric (just as the s orbital of the hydrogen atom is spherically symmetric) by virtue of being a (self-confined) wave. The thing, for us is a donut more in momentum space, not in space. Strictly, for my new theory, the length scale is a SCALAR (not a vector) length. I fear all one would see then is exactly what is predicted by the uncertainty principle ... that as one tries harder to look by going to higher Energy-momentum one gets vaguer by time-place.

All is not lost however. Spin to the rescue!  One WOULD see big differences between spin parallel and spin antiparallel scattering. So spin polarised scattering is just what you need. Take cross section from one - subtract from the other - and what is left over is a clear signal of electron spin-structure. This is, and will continue to prove) one of the major experimental tests for us and for our models. In other words, the way to do it is to orient the target in a magnetic field, or pre-polarise it as in the ZGS sychrotron (O'Fallon, Krish) or EMC papers (me in there, but the name Alan Edwards springs to the front of my mind).

If you look at papers on the EMC effect you will, indeed, see my name on the papers (near the bottom!). The first seminal experiments on the "spin problem" (now forgotton by Wikipedia) were at Argonne national lab on the zero gradient sychrotron (ZGS) (O Fallon et al 1977, Krish 1979). Wiki credits me (amongst others) with seeing - as yet unexplained, effect in spin polarised scattering in the (later) EMC effect (publications in the 1980's).

Guess what - there is a large group gathering at this very moment to revive Brookhaven and start looking at the spin of things.  These people will be our friends.

As to Viv's request for help. Yep - I can suggest and help design experiments. I can also explain how to do (some of the) maths - but will not get sucked in to doing this exclusively. At least until I have got the new theory out and publicised.

Regards to all,

John
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Vivian Robinson [viv at etpsemra.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:57 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion
Hi Richard and All,

Richard, thanks for your emails below. I understand your calculations and introduction of gamma to the frequency of the moving electron. In my model I suggest that time slowing down is caused by the necessity for the conservation of the angular momentum of the rotating photon. This is required to prevent the mass of the electron increasing according to 1/gamma squared. You appear to overcome it by reducing the radius of rotation by 1/gamma squared and not 1/gamma. I contend that effect I describe is the origin of the gamma term used in the special relativity corrections.  In other words, it is the rotating photon model of matter that gives rise to the corrections of mass, distance and time due to the special theory of relativity through gamma. As such the gamma correction should not be further applied to any particle under any rotating photon model of matter. The double loop is responsible for E = mc**2.

As I mentioned earlier the important feature here is that rotating photon models of matter predict a reduction in radius as the particle moves at higher velocity. This is a clear separation from the standard model's idea that an electron is a point particle. It is something that can be tested experimentally. I was also trying to get the message across that experiment should be the only arbiter in science. I am happy to accept comments on any aspect of my work but will keep to my calculations until such time as experimental evidence shows they are not correct. Your earlier pointing out of my error in the electron's magnetic moment was appreciated. At this stage the experimental evidence available to me suggests that my calculations hold.

My paper on the electron also makes a number of other predictions about properties of the electron that are either unknown or known but not recognised. These can be tested experimentally. I am quietly confident that when the appropriate experiments are performed, most, if not all, of my predictions will be verified.

One purpose of my previous email was to point out that, if you have a different theoretical approach to a problem, please make a testable prediction that separates your theoretical work from that of others. It is observation and experiment, not mathematical elegance, that determines the accuracy of an idea.

We all seem to agree that the rest radius of an electron will be hbar/2mc, i.e., 1.93 x 10**-13 m. That in itself is a significant separation from the the standard model's  "point particle". Measuring dimensions of an electron at rest is a difficult task. This radius must decrease with velocity when the electron moves. It can be said this is confirmed from experimental measurements which show the electron scatters like a point particle at high (GeV to TeV) energies. What is needed is an experiment that can demonstrate the reduction at intermediate energies, e.g., the keV energy range.

One such method is to send two electron beams against each other. The simplest adjustable electron beams are from electron microscope columns. The beams can be focussed and positioned to nano metre accuracy. Setting up appropriately positioned electron detectors around the apparatus is likewise not difficult. The whole facility could be set up for circa a few million dollars and should not be beyond the limit of various science funding authorities. It may be possible to gain access to some of the older but not yet decommissioned particle accelerators and use them. The required keV energy range may make them unsuitable and time on them would probably cost more than dedicated equipment. Thus the suggestion of dedicated electron scattering equipment.

 What is needed is a set of calculations that will be able to distinguish between the scattering patterns from charged point particles and charged loop particles in the keV energy range. Armed with such calculations and a design of the equipment needed to test them, it should be possible to issue a direct challenge to the "standard model". (For those of you who don't know, my background is that of electron microscopy and building the world's best "outside the lens" scattered electron detectors. With suitable funding I can handle all aspects of the equipment required.) Varying the voltage would indicate whether the reduction in radius is proportional to the inverse of gamma or gamma squared (or any other term). Extrapolation of measurements from various voltages should also verify the 1.93  x 10**-13 m rest radius.

In the first instance I am using a point particle electron as r = 10**-17 m and the loop electron as r = 1.9 x 10**-13 m. The probability of close approach is considerably larger for the loop electron meaning there should be a lot more wide angle scattering from charged loop electrons than from charged point electrons. The issue of beam density (number of electrons per unit area) for a given voltage is easy. This gives the probability of electrons passing close to each other. Calculating the scattering angles for different distances of closest approach and different energies is more difficult. If anyone is willing and able to contribute to the calculations I would appreciate it.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson

On 16/03/2015, at 3:50 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:


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

Hello Vivian,
    Thanks for your comments and your emphasis that the various double-loop electron models need to make testable predictions. You mentioned that our two electron models as circulating double-looping photons make two different predictions about the decrease of the transverse size of the electron model as the speed of the electron increases. Your calculation gives R= Ro/gamma  while my calculation gives R=Ro/(gamma^2). This gave me an incentive to go through your article more closely to try to account for the difference in our two predictions. In doing this I noticed two significant errors (as I see it) in your analysis that I had not noted before:

1) In your derivation of the size of the transverse radius of your electron model as it depends on electron's velocity, you assumed that the time t=To=Lcompton/c for the circulating photon in a resting electron to make two complete circular loops is the same as the time t for a moving electron’s photon to make two complete helical turns. From this assumption you calculated the transverse radius of your moving electron model to be R= Ro/gamma ,  where Ro = hbar/2mc for a resting electron.  But as you mention (correctly) later in your article, the frequency of a moving electron is larger that for a resting electron, and is proportional to the moving electron's total energy: hf=gamma mc^2 . You did not take into account this increase of the circulating photon's frequency F=gamma Fo where Fo=mc^2/h , and therefore the corresponding reduction of the time period T=To/gamma for two turns of the helically moving photon, into account in your calculation of R. In summary, the helically moving photon takes a time T=To/gamma to make 2 complete helical turns while the circulating photon in the resting electron takes time To to make two complete circular loops, where To = Lcompton/c. I think that when this error is corrected, you will also find the result for the transverse electron radius R=Ro/(gamma^2) for a moving electron. You may also refer to “The electron is a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength" for my derivation of R as it depends on the velocity of the electron.

2) In reviewing your derivation of the de Broglie wavelength, starting with the relativistic energy-momentum equation for the electron E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4, you have a right triangle of sides E for the hypotenuse, mc^2 for one side and pc=KE for the third side. The mistake is that pc does not equal KE for a moving electron. The relativistic equation for the KE of a moving electron is KE = (gamma-1) mc^2 which reduces to KE = 1/2 mv^2 in the non-relativistic limit. So when you then set pc = KE = h Fke  = hc/LAMBDAke  , neither Fke nor LAMBDAke — which you find equals the de Broglie wavelength h/p -- is physically justified. You only associated the de Broglie wavelength LAMBDAdb = h/p with the electron’s momentum p in the term pc, rather than derived the de Broglie wavelength. If however you divide all sides of the above triangle by c, you have a momentum vector relationship where the hypotenuse E/c and the other two sides of the triangle are mc and p . E/c = gamma mc is the total instantaneous momentum of the helically circulating charged photon in my electron model, p = gamma mv is the charged photon's longitudinal component of momentum (which is the moving electron’s linear momentum) and mc is the charged photon’s instantaneous  transverse component of momentum, which contributes to the calculation of the resting electron’s spin hbar/2 for a resting electron.

I also noted that your definition of the zitterbewegung frequency as Fzitt=mc^2/h in your article is half that of the normally accepted value Fzitt = 2 mc^2/h (found from the Dirac equation).

with warm regards,
       Richard
On Mar 13, 2015, at 6:25 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at etpsemra.com.au<mailto: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 (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

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 . 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 and 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:



________________________________
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/20150319/464155ad/attachment-0001.htm>