[General] position

Wed May 6 23:26:56 PDT 2015

Andrew and all,
  Some further thoughts on electron-positron pair production:

My model of a spin 1/2 hbar charged photon makes a helical double-loop of radius lambda/4pi (in order to get its spin to be 1/2 hbar instead of 1 hbar with its helical radius lambda/2pi). This double looping of the spin 1/2 charged photon doubles the frequency of the spin 1/2 photon (without doubling its energy). 

So  this spin 1/2 charged photon has half the radius  and twice the frequency of a spin 1 hbar photon of the same energy as the spin 1/2 charged photon. In other words, this results in the helical trajectory of a spin 1/2 charged photon having the same helical trajectory as another spin 1 hbar photon that has twice the actual energy and twice the energy-related frequency of the spin 1/2 charged photon. (This frequency doubling effect in a spin 1/2 hbar charged photon is similar to the frequency doubling  of a double-looping photon in a resting electron having a zitterbewegung double-frequency fzitt=2mc^2/h without having double its photon energy, which is proportional to its regular frequency given by  f=mc^2/h for a resting electron).

The result is that a single uncharged photon of energy 2mc^2 has the same helical size and shape and total energy as that of two spin 1/2 hbar charged photons traveling side by side (one of positive charge +e and the other of negative charge -e) each of energy mc^2. This suggests that under particular circumstances (in the region of a charged nucleus to absorb momentum for example) a single spin 1 hbar photon of energy 2mc^2 could become two spin 1/2 hbar charged photons without changing its trajectory's size or shape, by an internal creation of a charge of +e and -e when the single spin 1 hbar photon converts into a +e charged spin 1/2 hbar photon and a -e charged spin 1/2 hbar photon, which then separate and curl up to become a positron and an electron. 

This process could happen in reverse also when an +e and an -e charged spin 1/2 hbar photon (a positron and an electron) interact and unwind to become again a single uncharged spin 1 hbar photon (in the case of virtual electron-positron pair production and annihilation) or to produce 2 or possibly 3 real spin 1 hbar photons in the case of actual electron-positron annihilation.

     Richard

> On May 2, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Andrew,
>    The photon can be considered a bundle of changing electromagnetic fields. If the photon’s electric field is “cut” energetically by some interaction, this could leave a created positive and a negative charge at the two ends where the electric field was cut. The two separated electric fields now with their positive and negative charges would then reconfigure to become a positively and a negatively charged photon (positron and electron). The charged photons would start circulating helically and would each produce a magnetic dipole field associated with the circulating charged photons produced by cutting the photon’s electric field.
>      Richard
> 
>> On May 2, 2015, at 9:24 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Richard,
>> 
>> You have raised important questions:
>> 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?
>> 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?
>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <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 <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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 richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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/20150506/f8089221/attachment.htm>