[General] Electron Torus
John Williamson
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
Fri May 22 06:02:06 PDT 2015
Hello Chip,
Have been meaning to say for some time: you are producing some beautiful models.
Would be good to talk at some stage.
Regards. John (W)
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:59 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus
Hi Richard
Sorry I was modeling what I though was the spin 1 photon model of the electron.
This is what I perceive to be your spin ½ photon model of the electron to be with velocity. Same velocity steps as before.
Nested set of models,
[cid:image002.png at 01D09464.92F47880]
Slow trajectory lines, purple, faster trajectory lines tending toward green.
Here is the code for the electron’s reference frame for the above graphic:
X(ii)=Roc*(1/y^2+(1/y)*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc))*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc);
Y(ii)=Roc*(1/y^2+(1/y)*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc))*sind(y*c*(t)/Roc);
Z(ii)=(Roc/y)*sind(y*c*(t)/Roc);
Note: there is still a very small electron model (with velocity 0.9988c) at the center of this graphic. In this model the contraction is in all directions, not just longitudinally. I think this is correct, but it does not agree with some interpretations of relativity. It is also difficult to see how this model, without spiral fields, would look the same to a moving observer when the electron is “at rest”.
And the model is of course not really spherical.
Does this match your results?
Can you share the graphics model you have done?
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 7:31 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus
John D., Chip and Andrew,
Isn’t it the case that in standard physics (experimentally confirmed) the measured spin of an electron is relative to the motion of the observer of the electron, just as the observed momentum of an electron is relative to the motion of the observer of the electron? If an observer moving west to east with a relativistic velocity v1 passes a “stationary” electron (in some reference frame) , the electron has an observed momentum (when it measured) going west, and a spin either up or down (when it is measured) in the east-west direction and a de Broglie wavelength corresponding to the relative velocity v1, while when an observer moving relativistically south to north with velocity v2 passes a “stationary" electron , the electron has an observed momentum (when it is measured) going south, a spin that is up or down (when it is measured) in the north-south direction, and a de Broglie wavelength corresponding to its relative velocity v2. (In QM, velocity, spin and de Broglie wavelength probably can’t all be measured at the same time).
The relativistic energy-momentum equation for the electron E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 applies to the electron described above when observed by two observers with two different relativistic velocities compared to the electron. I showed in my article “the electron is a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength” that the same relativistic energy-momentum equation applies to a helically moving double-looping photon that may compose an electron, where E is the energy of the photon (the same as the total energy of the electron composed by the photon), p is the longitudinal momentum of the helically moving photon (the same as the momentum p of the electron being modeled), E/c is the total momentum of the photon along its helical path, and mc is the transverse momentum of the helically moving photon, which contributes to the electron’s spin up or spin down value hbar/2 in the case of a slow moving electron (modeled by the double-looping photon). So every electron observed to have a momentum p will in this view also have a spin hbar/2 up or down in the direction of its momentum.
Also, when a photon is Doppler shifted-due to relative motion of the light source away from or towards the observer, the observed wavelength of the photon is lengthened or shortened accordingly. Doesn’t this imply that the length of the whole photon (if it consists of a certain number of wavelengths) is also lengthened or shortened accordingly?
Richard
On May 22, 2015, at 12:06 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:
David:
Why don’t photons get length contracted? Because they’re just waves in space moving at the speed of waves in space. A ripple in a rubber mat doesn’t get length contracted, nor do waves in space. Then when you make those waves go round and round, they still don’t get length-contracted. Then when you move past them fast, they still don’t get length contracted. You might say the path of those waves is different, but it isn’t, they didn’t change, you did. And if you boil yourself down to a single electron, and boil that down to a ring, then draw circles and helixes, I think it gets to the bottom of things.
Chip:
Yes, I’m certain relative velocity is a determining factor. But note that “we” are made of electrons and things, so IMHO it’s best to start with two particles, such as the electron and the positron. If you set them down with no initial relative motion they move linearly together, and we talk of electric force.
<image005.jpg>
However if you threw the postiron over the top of the electron they’d move together and go around one another, whereupon we talk of magnetic force. Note that this is relative velocity, not relativistic velocity. I’ve seen people explain the magnetic field around the current-in-the-wire using length contraction<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65335/how-do-moving-charges-produce-magnetic-fields>, but IMHO that’s a fairy tale, and I prefer a “screw” answer<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184055/atomic-explanation-of-magnetic-field/184079?noredirect=1#comment388570_184079>.
Regards
John D
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 21 May 2015 21:39
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus
Hi John D
Regarding…
Sorry, I don’t think that can be right because you could go past an electron at .9988c.
Yes, I am coming to think that maybe the spiral fields caused by limited field propagation velocity, might play a larger role than I had first considered.
I think Martin was onto this aspect already.
Wondering if relative velocity is a factor in determining what portion of the spiral field we detect or interact with? And if so, how that might work.
<image006.png>
The earlier electron model graphics are created from the math that Richard developed for his spin ½ electron.
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:15 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus
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.
<image007.png>
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] 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<mailto: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:
<image008.jpg>
Showing the reduced radius with velocity.
But when we look at the model slightly off axis (Z axis) we see this:
<image009.jpg>
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<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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] 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<mailto: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] 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<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Richard
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<mailto: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] 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<mailto: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] 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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 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">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150522/4d9bf30c/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 128577 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150522/4d9bf30c/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the General
mailing list