[General] Electron Torus
Andrew Meulenberg
mules333 at gmail.com
Thu May 21 23:04:02 PDT 2015
Dear John D,
Chip straightened me out on the description. However my misinterpretation
was based on my model that requires the stationary electron to be
spherical. It must be spherical for several reasons:
1. If circular, the energy of the superposed fields is much greater than
if distributed spherically. Thus, the photon orbit is the outer layer of
the 'ball of yarn' to provide the uniform Coulomb field and minimum energy
of the electron.
2. If not spherical, it will have a preferred spin-axis (not allowed, if
it is to have a spin of 1/2 in any direction)
3. motion (or an applied field) flattens the electron in the direction
of motion and gives it a preferred spin-axis direction (a major axis of
rotation). This is not possible for a non-isotropic electron.
4. the portions of the photon that exceed c, by moving in the direction
of electron motion, will cause a torque on the electron, which causes a
precession that determines the here-to-fore defined, but unexplained,
deBroglie wavelength.
This spherical nature certainly does not interfere with the twisted-photon
or helical-motion concepts of the electron since there may be 1e6 cycles of
the photon wrapped to form the electron/positron pair.
Andrew
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:44 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
wrote:
> Chip:
>
>
>
> Sorry, I don't think that can be right because you could go past an
> electron at .9988c.
>
>
>
> Andrew:
>
>
>
> Photons don't get length contracted, and electrons are made out of photons
> in pair production. If you simplify the electron to a photon going round in
> a circle, then take one point on the circumference, you would say it
> describes a circular path. But when you move past the electron fast, you
> would say that point was describing a helical path. Then when you consider
> all points of the circumference, you might say the electron was a cylinder
> rather than a circle. And if you *were* that electron, everything to you
> would look length-contracted, because you're smeared out. If I was a
> motionless electron you'd say I was length contracted. But I might say *I
> *was the one moving, and that *you're* length-contracted.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=
> btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Chip
> Akins
> *Sent:* 21 May 2015 17:52
>
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electron Torus
>
>
>
> Hi Andrew
>
>
>
> Images from the electron's reference frame.
>
>
>
> For Richard's model using the spin 1 photon, and drawing in the electron's
> reference frame, his math produces the following image for a set of nested
> electron models with velocities up to 0.9988c.
>
> [image: cid:image003.png at 01D093BB.88E60DD0]
>
>
>
> The small grey sphere in the center is the electron model for 0.9988c.
>
>
>
> So in this model the electron shrinks in all directions, but remains
> principally spherical when viewed from the electron's reference frame.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Andrew Meulenberg
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:15 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electron Torus
>
>
>
> Dear Chip,
>
> I learn something new every time. However, it may not be true.
>
> If I interpret your images properly, the fastest electrons are the
> longest. However, relativistic shortening should shrink the length. I had
> expected the electron to 'pancake' in the direction of motion. You show the
> opposite. Is the pancake only in the electron's frame and the appearance
> from our frame is one of an extended structure? If both, do they cancel
> and, in reality, it is still spherical?
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard
>
>
>
> So it is a bit more difficult to visualize exactly what is going on from
> the graphics with velocity.
>
>
>
> We increase the velocity is in steps from *zero through 0.9988c.*
>
>
>
> From the Z axis the illustration looks like:
>
> [image: cid:image004.jpg at 01D093BB.88E60DD0]
>
>
>
> Showing the reduced radius with velocity.
>
>
>
> But when we look at the model slightly off axis (Z axis) we see this:
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image005.jpg at 01D093BB.88E60DD0]
>
>
>
> So this is a set of nested electron models with different velocities, each
> starting from the same point (upper right of the illustration). These are
> drawn from an external observers frame and are not shown in the electron's
> reference frame.
>
>
>
> In the electron's reference frame we would see closure to the trajectory,
> but in this reference frame, the trajectory (since it is moving) is not
> closed.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Gauthier
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:29 AM
>
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electron Torus
>
>
>
> Chip,
>
> Please correct a couple of typos in my last email. The TEQ
> (transluminal energy quantum) moves on the surface of a torus, not a helix.
> Also the first helical radius mentioned should have been Ro sqrt(2) = 1.414
> Ro , not Ro sqrt(2)/2 = 1.414 Ro since sort(2)/2 = 0.707 not 1.414 .
> Thanks.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On May 20, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chip,
>
> Nice graphics!
>
>
>
> Shouldn't the electric field lines of an electron at some distance
> from the electron model be pointing inward linearly towards the electron
> from infinity on all sides, since the electron's electric field (due to its
> electric charge) falls off as 1/r^2 . I don't understand why the electric
> field lines appear closed in your diagrams.
>
>
>
> In my original resting electron model the TEQ was a circulating
> negative electric charge which circulated on the surface of a helix. I
> called the circulating TEQ a photon-like object since it was similar to my
> TEQ model of a photon. I was assuming at that time that the photon in my
> resting electron model had spin 1, even though I had adjusted the helical
> radius so that the circulating TEQ generated the magnetic moment of the
> electron of 1 Bohr magneton, requiring a helical radius for the TEQ of Ro
> sqrt(2)/2 = 1.414 Ro which created the spindle torus in my model . So this
> was actually neither a spin 1 photon (whose radius for a resting electron
> would have been 2Ro, or a spin 1/2 photon, whose radius for a resting
> electron would be Ro, as in the 3D models that you and I generated from the
> moving electron equations I proposed. Since I currently prefer the model of
> an electron composed of a spin 1/2 circulating photon, this doesn't
> generate the electron's magnetic moment of 1 Bohr magneton. But it
> generates a magnetic moment more than 1/2 Bohr magneton which would be
> produced by a charge circulating at light speed in a simple double loop of
> radius Ro. I haven't done the calculation for the magnetic moment generated
> by my spin 1/2 photon model of the electron, but I suspect that it would be
> 0.707 Bohr magneton (just a guess at this point). The calculation of this
> magnetic moment from the TEQ trajectory equations for a charged TEQ in the
> spin 1/2 photon model is relatively straightforward though.
>
>
>
> By the way, have you looked at the side view of the actual TEQ
> trajectory at various values of v/c of the electron in the spin 1/2 photon
> moving-electron model that I proposed (and that you programmed and graphed
> in 3D to show how the model size changes as 1/gamma at various values of
> v/c)? The side view of the TEQ trajectory for a moving electron contains
> some surprises, at least for me. I thought that at high values of v/c (say
> 0.99 or 0.999) the TEQ would just appear from the side view to rotate
> helically around its reducing and increasingly more linear helical
> trajectory (whose trajectory reduces as 1/(gamma^2), with the TEQ's
> helical radius reducing as 1/gamma. But that's apparently not what happens.
> Could you check this with your 3D program?
>
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 19, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Richard
>
>
>
> If your spin 1 photon model of the electron is similar to John W and
> Martin's model in that the field lines always orient with the negative end
> outwards (providing for charge) the estimated field distribution is similar
> to this illustration. (Equatorial View)
>
>
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
>
>
> (Top View from Z axis)
>
> <image002.jpg>
>
>
>
> (45 degree elevation view)
>
> <image004.jpg>
>
>
>
> Red lines represent negative ends of field lines, Blue lines represent
> positive, black is the transport radius, faint green line is one
> circulation at the transport radius.
>
> Photon field amplitude is shown as a cosine function of wavelength/2.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Richard Gauthier
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:06 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electron Torus
>
>
>
> Chip,
>
> Perfect! It would also be good to have the pair of tori seen an an
> angle from above their 'equator' to get a more 3-D quality.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On May 5, 2015, at 6:07 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Richard
>
>
>
> How do these look?
>
>
>
> <image003.png>
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Richard Gauthier
> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 1:18 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electron Torus
>
>
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> The radius of the circle in the horn torus (spin 1/2 photon model)
> should visually be (since it is actually) 1/2 of the radius of the circle
> in the spindle torus (spin 1 photon model) -- the spin 1/2 photon model is
> smaller than the spin 1 photon model. Thanks! And could you perhaps show
> the energy quantum trajectory in a different color that the torus
> background so the trajectory stands out better?
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard
>
>
>
> <image004.png>
>
>
>
>
>
> <image005.png>
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Gauthier
> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 12:19 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electron Torus
>
>
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> Thanks. And finally, the vertical ovals of the tori should be circles
> because the circulating quantum has the same radius in the vertical and
> horizontal directions.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On May 4, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Richard
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Here you go:
>
> <image001.png>
>
>
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Richard Gauthier
> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 10:43 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electron Torus
>
>
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> Both tori should be symmetrical above and below the z-axis and center on
> z=0.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On May 4, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Richard
>
>
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
>
>
> Viewed from the Z axis:
>
> <image002.jpg>
>
>
>
> And from the equatorial plane:
>
> <image003.jpg>
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Richard Gauthier
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 03, 2015 11:07 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] position
>
>
>
> Chip and all,
>
> Here are some equations that relate to the modeling of a circulating
> photon as an electron. The second and third set include my own model of the
> photon. The first set doesn't require a particular model for the photon,
> except as mentioned below. The first model is the one that generates the de
> Broglie wavelength as explained in my article mentioned below.
>
>
>
> 1. Here is the set of parametric equations for the helical trajectory of
> double-looping photon that models a free electron, and whose circular
> radius for a resting electron is Ro=hbar/2mc. The speed of the photon along
> this trajectory is always c. The longitudinal or z-component of the
> photon's speed is the electron's velocity v along the z-axis. The frequency
> of the photon around the helical axis is proportional to the circulating
> photon/electron's energy E=gamma mc^2. The distance of the photon's helical
> trajectory from the z-axis for an electron whose speed is v, is
> proportional to 1/gamma^2. This equation is in my article "The electron is
> a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength". This equation does not
> include a particular model of the photon, but assumes that the photon
> follows the relations c=f lambda, E=hf and p=h/lambda. Both helicities of
> the helical trajectory are given.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 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 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 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 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150522/46501b56/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 93535 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150522/46501b56/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20632 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150522/46501b56/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 26659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150522/46501b56/attachment-0001.jpg>
More information about the General
mailing list