[General] double-loop electron model discussion

Mon Mar 23 07:18:01 PDT 2015

http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/42262/title/Stirring-
the-Pot/
<http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42262/title/Stirring-
the-Pot/> 

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42399/title/Book-Excer
pt-from-Galileo-s-Middle-Finger/

Dear Friends: I am diverting your attention to a timely and interesting
publication by Alice Dreger. The links above will take you to free excerpts
out of the book, "Galileo's Middle-Finger"!

Regarding our conference: Unless I have accidentally missed them all; I have
not yet gotten feedback from any of you regarding your ideas as to (i) how
you want to "structure" the Thursday's "discussion" at the conference and
(ii) how to transcribing and organize the ideas-discussed for publication in
the conference proceeding. 

Sincerely,

Chandra.

PS: Vivian: I am actually responding to your "thread" in this discussion
series. Although, I am not explicitly responding now to your ideas; but I
just want you to know that I like most of your mode of thinking expressed
below.

============================================

-----Original Message-----
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 6:36 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

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 <
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> 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

> 

>> 

_______________________________________________

If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:chandra at phys.uconn.edu>
chandra at phys.uconn.edu <a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/chandra%40phys.uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/chandra%40phys.uconn.edu?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/20150323/735a9372/attachment.htm>