[General] position
Andrew Meulenberg
mules333 at gmail.com
Sat May 2 09:24:43 PDT 2015
Dear Richard,
You have raised important questions:
1. can you cut a photon in 1/2?
- not with a pair of scissors, but it can be done
- if so, how does its nature change?
2. can you 'rectify' a photon?
- can this give only the positive OR the negative fields diverging from
each component?
- if so, how do you do it?
- if so, how does its nature change?
3. If you can split or rectify a photon so that all + charge is in one
part and all - charge in the other:
- are the parts still photons?
- are they stable over time and space as the the neutral photon is?
- If so, under what conditions? (or are they unconditionally stable
for some condition?)
- if the condition fails, what happens to the charged photon?
- Does a particular condition exist similar to that of a neutron. In
free space it is not stable. In a nucleus it is.
I guess that I have assumed general relativity is required for photon
stability from the beginning. Distortion of space is required to change the
local refractive index for solitonic self-focusing of the photon to give a
photon its stability. I would say that a charged photon is only stable in
an electron or positron. They can appear to be independent (e.g. when the
wormhole breaks, becomes delocalized), but spin momentum (as a vortex?) is
conserved and it can reform (as a wormhole) or achieve stability (in a
less-concentrated form) in a net-neutral environment.
I would never consider a photon to be charged, unless it is constrained as
a lepton. This includes my extension of leptons as the building blocks of
all real matter (perhaps including quarks). They might have short term
existence and, if a source can be found/made and if they are actively
sought, then they might be found. I do not know of any hints that would
support their existence. However, this is the same problem with cold fusion
or populated deep Dirac levels. They could be produced all of the time and
we would never know.
Andrew
______________________________________
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
> Since electromagnetism can be expressed in 4-D in a mathematically
> covariant form in special relativity, I suppose that this includes Gauss'
> law which is one of the 4 Maxwell equations. Wormholes are related to
> general relativity, so your wormhole proposal about electrons goes beyond
> the 4-D approach of special relativity, to relating Gauss' law, electrons
> and electric fields to general relativity, for which there is currently no
> accepted theory of quantum gravity. If an electron is a circulating charged
> photon rather than a circulating uncharged photon, would you still propose
> a wormhole to connect an electron and a positron formed at the same time
> during pair production?
> Richard
>
> On May 1, 2015, at 8:28 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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/20150502/fe92b941/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list