[General] double-loop electron model discussion

[Vivian Robinson]

Richard, 

The intent of my earlier communications has been to suggest that the only arbiter of the actual situation is experimental measurement and observation. Different people have different approaches that can lead to different  theories about observed phenomena. One approach that matches an observation does not necessarily have an advantage over another approach that matches the same observation. Its advantage is only in its ability to predict a new phenomenon that other approaches don't predict, which phenomenon can be tested experimentally. If the phenomenon is verified experimentally it suggests the new approach and theory has an advantage over other theories. 

Regarding the de Broglie wavelength, it was predicted circa 1923 and observed a few years later. It is well established and deriving it again mathematically is not a new prediction. In a world where everything is electromagnetic E**2 = p**2c**2 + mo**2c**4, mo is the rest mass of a parcel composed of a rotating photon. A linear photon has no rest mass and mo = 0, giving E = pc. The rest of my calculation follows. As far as the zitterbewegung is concerned, it is caused by the frequency of the electron given by nu = mc**2/h. It becomes a minor point as to whether the zbw is defined as the rotating photon's frequency, in which case the vibration is over a whole wavelength, or whether it is defined as being each time the polarity goes through zero, in which case it is every half wavelength and hence double the frequency. The cause is still the frequency of the rotating photon. 

The important feature of the rotating photon model is the predictions that can be made and tested by experiment. As John W mentioned, the scattering  experiments I suggested will be most conclusive if they are done with spin polarised electrons. And thanks Martin for suggesting a source of spin polarised electrons. As John W also mentioned, the experiment will be much cheaper than CERN to set up and operate, and has the possibility of obtaining more meaningful results by establishing the correctness of this rotting photon model. Some experiments have already been done scattering beams of spin polarised protons and the results showed a very significant dependence of scattering on the proton's spins. When spin is angular momentum, this would expected. With the same angular momentum (half hbar) and 1/1836 times the mass, there should be a significant dependence of scattering on the electron's angular momentum (spin) as well.

Richard, and anyone else, if you feel you can contribute to the calculations of the expected dependence of electron scattering upon spin, John W and I would be pleased to receive you contribution. The energy range would be of the order of 500 keV to avoid coulomb scattering. All contributions welcome. Richard if you were to provide the calculations for the expected scattering patterns using your radius diminishing with gamma squared that would assist. In the absence of other suggestions, at this stage the only feature common to the rotating photon models is that the radius will go from 1.93 x 10**-13 m at rest to a point particle at high GeV and TeV energies, making it a clear separation from the standard model.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson

On 19/03/2015, at 3:56 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Vivian (and all)
>    Thank you for your extended comments and explanations. Before we get into further details about your model and whether its frequency depends on the electron’s speed, I would like to hear your replies to my comments towards the end of your article about your asserting that pc = KE of an electron, and your further assertion based on this that you have derived the de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv)  from your electron model. Also I would like to know why you equated the zitterbewegung frequency of an electron with mc^2/h rather than the accepted value (from the Dirac equation) of 2 mc^2/h.
>    all the best,
>          Richard
> 
>>