[General] Electron's Radius

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Sat May 9 06:02:10 PDT 2015


Hi John M

 

I have been working with your hypothesis and running the math as well.  I think there is something valid in taking the approach you have taken, because it helps get to the foundation and causes.  I do not, at this point, feel you have addressed everything, and perhaps there are possibilities regarding the nature of space which are similar in many ways, but differ in a few points.  

One thing that I am pondering is the absence of angular momentum in your model of spacetime dipole waves.  It seems many issues can be resolved if there is actually chaotic and dispersed angular momentum which becomes organized under the right circumstances.  The vortices for stable particles would then be naturally formed by superfluid behaviors.  It seems superfluidity requires that the medium have constituents (particles) which possess angular momentum. It would be difficult to envision a superfluid space exhibiting these properties without angular momentum in the “dipole waves”. Angular momentum in the “dipole waves” could also help explain the spin and quantization properties we measure in fundamental particles.  So my question is, why did you conclude that the dipole waves have no angular momentum?

 

Regarding wave velocities:

In any medium, the speed of longitudinal waves is generally much faster than the speed of transverse waves.  I think this is an important attribute, but difficult to detect directly, however the results are not so difficult to detect. So I think it may be premature to insist that the internal velocity of the “diploe waves” is limited to c. The velocity c would be a result of the shear modulus of the construct of spacetime.

I also think we may be able to show that the fine structure constant is generated due to the difference in the bulk and shear modulus of space, and the resultant difference (fractional compatibility) in transverse and longitudinal waves.

 

Regarding electron models:  In my model it is assumed that the transport radius of the transverse EM wave is the radius of momentum interaction, and that the entire wave contributes to the total momentum, (just as an entire photon interacts with a particle).  Generally when we measure spin of an electron, we have its orientation restricted by a magnetic field, and further restricted by the longitudinal motion of the electron itself.  While a free electron may tumble and become spherical, I think it is reasonable to assume that an electron in motion, or oriented by a magnetic field will exhibit a more toroidal or even planar transport radius, instead of spherical. Even the helical path of an electron in a magnetic field indicates the principal axis of spin is perpendicular to the direction of travel. 

But we clearly should not confuse the transport radius path with the field direction lines or effective extents.

The spin mode of a photon is about the longitudinal axis and the fields are symmetrically distributed about this axis.  The spin mode of my electron model is not the same.  The primary axis of spin is offset from the field center by about . This offset, this completely different spin mode, is presumably the origin of charge, as in Williamson, van der Mark, 1997 paper.  More recently I have been studying the effects of a velocity limit on the fields and that prompted the graphics sent earlier showing a spin vortex for fields in the electron and the photon. While such vortex types of spin may be accurate, they add a level of complexity to the full set of solutions. To better understand the interactions of these fields, it seems important to delve into the behavior of the fabric of space itself.

I want to applaud your efforts, but I also want to caution that many very smart physicists have pursued similar lines and not been able to resolve enough of the issues to present an acceptable theory.  However you have taken a different approach than most and it is exciting to see your work evolve.  One problem is that we are looking at the macro world to decipher the puzzle, and we have the tendency to place the same constraints we see in the macro world on constants in the micro world.  When those macro constants are often created by the micro world, and a completely different set of constants may actually apply at the lowest micro level.

Still studying your work, much to work through and understand.  Thank you.

 

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 3:00 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles
Subject: [General] Electron's Radius

 

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 λc 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 λc.  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 As = Lp/λc ≈ 4.18x10-23 (dimensionless ratio). This can be mathematically represented as having a radius of λc, 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 = λc) 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 λc 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 λc.

 

My model gives an exact distortion of spacetime (curvature) at radius equal to λc.  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.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150509/417695cb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 343 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150509/417695cb/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 378 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150509/417695cb/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 378 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150509/417695cb/attachment-0002.png>


More information about the General mailing list