[General] Electron's Radius

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear John M,

In your 'foundations' or book, do you have a detailed description of your
dipole wave? (If so, pls note pages.)  For example I would consider a
photon to be a dipole wave in spacetime. Do you? Is it a 'new creature' or
are there examples that would help us to better picture your model? You
have described its dimensions, but I don't find its nature. How does it
differ from an 'ordinary' wave? What is waving? You have stated that it is
not waving point particles. None of us would think that to be the case. We
all think of photons as EM waves and some may even stretch them into 4-D.
Some of the main-group (not in the photonic-electron group) talk about
oscillating dipole charges; but I will address that issue in one of my
papers.

I agree with so much of what you say, but some of the concepts seem to
leave out critical features. These are the things that we would like to
'hash' out and build a consensus on at the conference.

Andrew

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 4:05 AM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:

> Richard,
>
>
>
> I used the analogy to rotating hoop and rotating disk to succinctly
> explain a concept.  We both agree that photons propagating at the speed of
> light around a circle would have angular momentum equal to the photon’s
> momentum times the radius of the circle. This assumption appears to be used
> in the calculation of the angular momentum of a double loop photon in
> radius ½ *λ*c.  Therefore, the disagreement is about 2 points: First, how
> much of the electron’s energy is contained in what I describe as the
> central rotating rate of time gradient?  Second, how much is the electron’s
> angular momentum reduced by the electron’s chaotic rotational
> characteristics compared to the assumption of a stable circular path?
>
>
>
> First, suppose that my model was half the electron’s energy in the form of
> a dipole wave in spacetime propagating at *c* around a stable circular
> path of radius *λ*c and the other half of the electron’s energy was
> present in the form of a non-rotating point particle at the center of the
> circle.  If this was the model, I presume that you would agree that this
> model would have angular momentum of ½ ħ even though the radius was *λ*c
> rather than ½ *λ*c.  I have no point particles, but the rotating dipole
> wave with circumference equal to the particle’s Compton wavelength produces
> a rotating time gradient in the central part of my electron model.  This
> rotating time gradient is equivalent to a rotating gravitational field that
> has about 1,000,000 times the earth’s gravitational acceleration and it is
> rotating at more than 1020 Hz. Such a rotating field has quantifiable
> energy density. I also show that it does not violate any laws of physics
> because a neutral particle would only experience a Planck length
> displacement.  Clearly this portion of the electron’s energy reduces the
> angular momentum compared to if all the electron’s energy propagated at the
> speed of light around a hoop-like channel with radius *λ*c.
>
>
>
> The second point, not address in your post, is the probabilistic nature of
> the rotation that also reduces the angular momentum compared to a stable
> circular path.  It is not obvious how to calculate this effect because we
> are dealing with a diffuse spherical volume.  This reduces the angular
> momentum compared to a hoop by at least 0.707 and probably more. The point
> is that the electron model has to be larger than ½ *λ*c to accommodate
> this effect.  A mathematical radius of *λ*c accomplishes all the force,
> frequency and energy density considerations that I require and it is
> flexible enough to achieve ½ ħ angular momentum depending on the exact
> distribution of energy density assigned to it.
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+john=
> macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Gauthier
> *Sent:* Friday, May 08, 2015 2:08 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electron's Radius
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>  It's natural to look for weak points while constructively criticizing a
> particular model. I find a weak point in your model in your reference to
> the moment of inertia of a uniform disk (I=1/2 MR^2) and a hoop (I=MR^2) in
> trying to explain why the spin of your electron should be 1/2 hbar instead
> of 1 hbar. Moments of inertia are used in non-relativistic physics to
> describe rotating rigid macroscopic bodies where mass and mass density are
> well defined at particular locations in the rotating object. It is assumed
> that the object with a moment of inertia I rotates as a rigid body with a
> constant angular velocity w (omega) to produce a particular angular
> momentum L=Iw, with the parts of the rigid object closer to the rotational
> axis moving proportionally slower that the parts of the object further
> away. My feeling is that comparing a single electron to a uniformly
> rotating rigid disk makes too many unlikely assumptions about the inner
> energy structure and energy density of an electron to make the comparison
> quantitatively a valid one. Would your argument be weaker or not if you
> were to withdraw the comparison of an electron to a uniformly rotating
> rigid disk with its uniform energy density moving at speeds proportional to
> the distance from its rotational axis?
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:00 PM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Chip and Everyone,
>
>
>
> Chip, you asked a simple question about the electron’s radius, but it is
> one that I have avoided until now because my answer conflicts with almost
> all the other members of the group.  To explain my answer I have to start
> at first principles and work forward.  Everything that I have done starts
> with the assumption that the universe is only 4 dimensional spacetime.  I
> have found that starting with that assumption it appears that all the
> mysteries of quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) can be
> conceptually understood.  I am not saying that I have personally solved
> “all” the mysteries, but I have solved enough of them to have confidence
> that this is the missing assumption which is required to unite QM and GR.
>
>
>
> This assumption restricts a scientist to a very narrow path with very
> little “wiggle” room.  If this was a wrong assumption, it would quickly
> lead to a dead-end because it does not allow wild new assumptions to be
> adopted. (no point particles, extra dimensions, multiverse, messenger
> particles etc.). However, if this is the correct assumption, the narrow
> path leads to amazing answers which are all interconnected and can be
> quantitatively analyzed.  I have had the experience of discovering that
> following this narrow path, I develop answers to scientific questions that
> I was not attempting to answer. Think of this as a “bottom up” approach to
> theoretical physics.  It starts with a few assumptions extrapolated from
> the basic assumption and works forward.  If the basic assumption is wrong,
> this would be an impossible task and it would be necessary to move on to
> some different starting assumptions.  My experience has been that this
> basic assumption always gives correct answers.  The few times that I have
> attempted to jump ahead to explain some physical effect without basing it
> on the physical properties of spacetime, I have usually obtained wrong
> answers.  I then went back and worked forward from the starting assumption
> and then obtained reasonable answers which could be quantified.
>
>
>
> In order to develop a model of particles which can produce the
> gravitational curvature of spacetime required by GR, it is necessary to
> incorporate waves which modulate both the rate of time and proper volume.
> Such waves in spacetime are forbidden by GR on the macroscopic scale
> covered by GR.  If such waves existed on the macroscopic scale, it would be
> possible to violate the conservation of momentum and also it would be
> possible to extract virtually unlimited energy from the vacuum.  However,
> QM allows such waves provided that the displacement of space does not
> exceed ± Planck length and the displacement of the rate of time does
> exceed ± Planck time.  Gravitational waves do not modulate time and space
> but dipole waves in spacetime perfectly meets these requirements.
> Furthermore, they are the most fundamental (simplest) waveform.
>
>
>
> Chip, you previously asked about the possibility of longitudinal waves in
> spacetime.  Dipole waves in spacetime can be thought of as being
> longitudinal waves in spacetime, but this definition is a little tricky
> since they are modulating volume so they have both longitudinal and
> transverse qualities.
>
>
>
> Now we can move on to the model of an electron.  I will start with a
> question for proponents that argue that the radius must be ½ *λ*c because
> that is the radius that gives ½ ħ angular momentum.  That model implies
> that all the electron’s energy is concentrated in one or two point
> particles which are rotating at the speed of light in a single plane in a
> circle with radius ½ *λ*c.  Such a model has a moment of inertia like a
> rotating hoop which nicely gives ½ ħ angular momentum.  However, this
> model uses mysterious point particles.  What are they made of?  What keeps
> the infinite energy density pressure from dissipating? What restrains the
> particles so that they propagate in a circle?  What is charge?
>
>
>
> I claim that there are only dipole waves in spacetime which occupy finite
> volume.  There are no point particles. All the particle properties are the
> result of some dipole waves possessing quantized angular momentum
> (explained in the foundation paper). Therefore, my model of an electron is
> a dipole wave in spacetime with strain amplitude (strain slope) of *A*s =
> *Lp*/*λ*c ≈ 4.18x10-23 (dimensionless ratio). This can be mathematically
> represented as having a radius of *λ*c, but being a wave it is
> distributed over a volume.  In the book I show that the wave properties
> present near the circumference fade into a rotating rate of time gradient
> at the center of the electron model.  This rate of time gradient has
> similarities to a rotating gravitational field.  Calculations show that
> this has exactly the same energy density as the rotating dipole wave near
> the circumference.  This gives my model uniform energy density which would
> exhibit a moment of inertial closer to a rotating disk rather than a
> rotating hoop. A rotating disk has half the moment of inertia as a rotating
> hoop, therefore the model must have twice the radius (r = *λ*c) to
> achieve ½ ħ angular momentum.
>
>
>
> It would be nice to end here, but there are further complicating
> considerations.  The rotation is not in a nice stable single plane.  This
> is at the limit of causality and the rotation has QM uncertainty.  There is
> an expectation rotational axis, but all other rotations are possible with
> different probabilities except that the opposite rotation to the
> expectation direction has a probability of zero.  This is explained in the
> book.  This chaotic rotation lowers the angular momentum measured around
> the expectation axis.  I explain both in the foundation article and the
> book that the exact energy distribution and size needs to be worked out by
> others, but at this stage of development, arm waving arguments result in
> angular momentum being ½ ħ. While there is some flexibility in the energy
> distribution, the particle’s mathematical radius needs to be *λ*c for all
> my calculations.
>
>
>
> The proponents of the double loop model must require that the rotation be
> in a single plane with no QM chaotic motion.  If you allow for chaotic
> rotation (required to give probabilistic spin orientation), then this
> lowers the angular momentum to less than ½ ħ because the chaotic rotation
> has probabilistic rotational orientations which invalidate the ½ ħ
> objective.   My model clearly can result in net angular momentum of ½ ħ
> but I do not see much hope for the double loop model unless it adopts wave
> properties which then allow it to have a distributed volume with radius
> exceeding ½ *λ*c.
>
>
>
> My model gives an exact distortion of spacetime (curvature) at radius
> equal to *λ*c.  Scaling from this known effect at this radius allows me
> to calculate the correct curvature of spacetime at larger distances and
> allows me to calculate the gravitational force at large distances.  The
> electrostatic and gravitational properties that I calculate also require
> that the frequency of standing waves in the surrounding volume must be at
> the particle’s Compton frequency.
>
>
>
> I am sure that this will raise objections and questions.  I welcome these.
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150509/d645361b/attachment.htm>