[General] position

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Richard ,

A comment below.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Chip,
>
>    I meant computer graphics 3D models, but physical models of the
> electron would also be very interesting and showable, particularly for a
> resting electron in  two proposed models - one composed of a spin 1
> uncharged photon and the other a spin 1/2 charged photon, each tracing a
> closed helix on the surface of its respective torus. I'm working on this
> with a basic 3-D graphics program, and will continue, but your computer
> graphics programs are much more powerful (not to mention your facility with
> them). Computer graphics would be best to show relativistic electron models
> with their changing size with velocity. I can offer some advice if needed.
>
>    The way our (the royal "our"?) views of electron models are developing,
> I think it may be time to consider redefining
>
> A)  a boson as an uncharged photon (or similar uncharged light-speed
> particle like a gluon, or a charged or uncharged particle W+, W- or Zo with
> spin 1 (i.e. whole number spin, composed of a photon or similar light-speed
> object. Bosons may or may not have mass or charge.
>
> B) a fermion as either a spin 1/2 charged photon like an electron, mu or
> tau, or an uncharged neutrino which may be a circulating spin 1/2 uncharged
> photon with low mass, or any of the quarks which may be spin 1/2
> electrically charged gluons with color charge also. Fermions always have
> mass and sometimes charge. The unifying idea is that all fundamental
> particles move either externally or internally at light speed, whether they
> are fermions or bosons.
>
>    I think it's time to start thinking about how a spin 1/2 charged photon
> might be modeled by electric and magnetic fields. I think it would be much
> easier to generate an electron model from a spin 1/2 charged-photon model
> than a spin 1 uncharged-photon model (remembering that the the electron has
> spin 1/2 at highly relativist velocities which would be hard to get from a
> spin 1 photon). A spin 1/2 charged photon would be a net source of electric
> charge (by Gauss' law), while an uncharged photon cannot be a source of net
> electric charge (as long as Gauss' law holds), no matter how you twist and
> turn the photon. One thought is that a negatively charged photon could have
> all its electric field pointing *inward* (where the negative charge is
> located) and pointing transverse to the charged photon's direction of
> motion,
>

I think your invoking Gauss' law is valid in 3-D, but not in 4-D. However,
there might be a 4-D version of Gauss' law. [Does it have the (-1,1,1,1)
metric?] Only 3-D presents a problem for the concept of 'inward' - unless
it is defined in 4-D.

Andrew


> while the charged photon's magnetic field points perpendicular to the
> electric field directions but also transverse to the direction of motion of
> the circulating photon. The charged photon would follow a helical
> trajectory for a moving electron, which would become a circular trajectory
> for a resting electron, where the magnetic field would resemble a dipole
> field. Just an initial thought.
>
>       Richard
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150501/9ee76ea8/attachment.htm>