[General] Electron Torus
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Thu May 28 11:59:41 PDT 2015
Hi Richard
Regarding entanglement:
Have you reviewed the topic in detail?
For example, this is a link to a page from the University of California,
Riverside.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html
Also have you reviewed Joy Christian’s papers and math claiming that
rotations (which are non-commuting) as “hidden variables” can account for a
local description which make the same predictions as QM and which does not
require entanglement to be real?
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 5:56 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus
Hi Chip and all,
It’s definitely worth multiple attempts from various directions to try to
explain quantized particles by electromagnetic fields. Such attempts have
been going on since the experimental recognition of quantized phenomena at
the micro level. The deeper understanding of quantum mechanics remains a
mystery, as seen by the multiple hypotheses about what may underly QM's
powerful probabilistic mathematical structure.
Another problem I have with EM field theory as fundamental is that an EM
field approach as far as I know cannot explain quantum entanglement which is
experimentally accepted as fact these days, despite Einstein’s objections to
“spooky action at a distance". Whereas if the energy quantum is fundamental,
entanglement can be one of its properties, whether expressed in the behavior
of photons, electrons or other quantum particles. I am happy to leave the
theory and experiments of entanglement to others for now and accept
entanglement as a proven fact unless experimentally found otherwise.
As far as animating the circulating charged photon's generation of quantum
matter waves or wave functions, I think it could start off along the lines
of animating Figure 2 in my charged photon article that I referenced
earlier, which you had a hand in generating. The helically circulating
charged photon’s quantum generates a series of plane waves forward along its
helical trajectory as it moves along this trajectory (think of a pulsating
speed-of-light beacon sending out plane waves (rather than the usual
spherical waves) at the speed of light in the direction of its motion, which
of course keeps changing . As these plane waves head outward, their wave
fronts, which are always perpendicular to the quantum's helical trajectory
when emitted, intersect the helical axis of the charged photon’s helical
motion, which corresponds to the linear trajectory of the electron being
modeled by the circulating charged photon. For each two wave fronts
separated by one wavelength h/(gamma mc) of the charged photon’s quantum
moving along its helical path, the distance along the helical axis between
the two parallel wave-fronts that intersect the z-axis is the de Broglie
wavelength h/(gamma mv) of the electron. As the photon’s quantum moves along
its helical path, these de Broglie wavelength “matter waves" move forward
along the longitudinal or z-axis at the superluminal phase velocity c^2/v
where v is the electron’s velocity. A nice animation that shows the
generation of the electron's de Broglie waves and their phase velocity as a
function of electron speed v (which affects the forward angle theta of the
charged photon’s helical trajectory since cos (theta) = v/c ) would be a
very visually effective (even dramatic) way of demonstrating these
relationships.
By the way, which do you think is better and/or easier to learn for doing
such animations: Matlab or Mathematica? Is there a third standard
alternative which is simpler (and cheaper) than either? (John M's animations
made with Mathematica are really nice!) I’d like to learn to use a graphics
program for such animations which goes beyond the abilities of my current
(and simpler) program 3D Grapher, and whose basics for 3D graphic animations
can be learned relatively quickly.
Richard
On May 27, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:
Hi Richard
You have done some excellent work showing a correlation between circulating
photon models of the electron and their quantum wave function. Your work
makes it much easier to see and understand these issues.
Regarding field self-organization, Maxwell’s equations define a specific
self-organization of fields, that is the nature of the equations, that is
one of their purposes. But they do not define any spin. We know that EM
fields exist and that they are present in photons, and other particles. It
seems a small step to assume we would need to extend Maxwell’s equations to
also define the cause for spin.
We know that EM fields carry momentum. It also seems reasonable to believe
that spin must be acting against (perpendicular to) the field’s longitudinal
momentum. Starting with this simple basis leads us to a host of potential
answers to puzzles.
So yes I am giving fields properties which go beyond those generally
accepted for EM fields, we are all proposing things which go beyond those
things generally accepted. We are doing that because it is evident to us,
and to most physicists, that we still do not have all the answers. And we
must explore beyond what we now know and currently accept.
It seems that the strong force may also be a mutual field force which is EM
in nature. So I am not excluding the strong force in the assumptions. With
the proper extension to Maxwell’s equations we also find some surprises,
like the Pauli Exclusion as John W. has pointed out.
With either the quantized field approach, or the TEQ approach, we still have
a remaining problem. We do not have an adequate definition for the photon.
If a photon can be one, or many, wavelengths long, but still only contain
the energy of one photon, and still only have the spin angular momentum of
one photon, neither the TEQ solution, nor the quantized-field based on
energy-density solution, work to create the possible range of photon
configurations.
If you feel that the TEQ is more fundamental than fields, instead of being
made of fields, then I guess we have come to completely different opinions
on this subject. I feel that if there is something more fundamental than
fields, it is very small, and closer to John Macken’s model for space.
While you may be right, I currently feel that fields are more fundamental.
Principally because it seems that quantized fields can supply the answers
without the “energy quantum” approach.
Regarding: “It would be interesting to see this quantum mechanical result
graphically animated and to also see if a plane wave generated by the
circulating TEQ charged photon model would generate the quantum wave
function for an electron.” How can I help? Any ideas on how to approach
the modeling of this? It seems I always learn something from these models.
Now about quarks. If you smash your computer with a very large hammer and a
single blow, you are not likely to come to an understanding of the
undisturbed organization of the components inside a computer. With enough
energy you will rearrange the components and they will tell you little of
the actual undisturbed configuration. Yes we can see a different
organization of the energy after collision, which can provide some insight
into the nature of space and particles, but probing particles in this manner
has some serious limitations. The actual organization of energy inside of a
proton or neutron is probably different than high energy collision can
disclose. As Martin has pointed out, the binding forces for the proton are
of necessity, quite huge. So trying to break apart these particles to see
what is inside will manifestly destroy much of the configuration
information. What can we say assuredly about quarks? They are the result of
high energy collisions, they cannot exist independently. We cannot say that
precisely and only 3 quarks are what make up a proton. Despite current
views, we may not even be accurate if we say that there are any “quarks”
inside a proton??? What if the energy of collision, combining with the
energy of the particles, is what creates quarks?
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:18 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus
Chip,
I appreciate that what we are doing here can be approached from multiple
directions. But to me it seems to be oversimplifying to think that “all
forces required to create particles are EM forces", since you seem to be
excluding strong nuclear forces and their associated particles like quarks
and gluons by this statement. And what about gravitons (if they exist)? Also
if you grant “self-organizing” properties to EM fields, you seem to be
giving them properties that go beyond those generally accepted for EM fields
(or not?). I don’t know if an energy quantum would be self-organizing or
would require inputs from an even deeper sub-quantum level.
One reason I feel quite strongly that an energy quantum may be more
fundamental that an EM field is that in my generic model for the electron,
the circulating charge photon (no specific photon model is implied here)
sends off plane waves corresponding to its momentum, directed along its
helical trajectory. The mathematical component of these plane waves along
the longitudinal direction of the charged photon’s helical motion is found
to generate the quantum mechanical wave function for a free electron, with
both the electron’s de Broglie wavelength and the electron's non-physical
faster-than-light phase velocity c^2/v. This is described in my article
“The electron is a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength” at
<https://www.academia.edu/10740682/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the
_de_Broglie_Wavelength>
https://www.academia.edu/10740682/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_
de_Broglie_Wavelength in Section 14: "Derivation of the quantum wave
function for a free electron". This implies an interpretation of quantum
mechanics (if this result holds for bound electrons and electrons influenced
by force fields also) that the charged photon and its hidden wavelength
h/(gamma mc) is “behind” quantum mechanics in a way that has not been
previously proposed. Now there may be (certainly will be) other models for
an energy quantum than my transluminal energy quantum model. But the idea
that a helically circulating energy quantum for a charged photon (in the
generic relativistic electron model) generates the quantum mechanical wave
function for a free electron seems to me quite a fundamental result and
worth further investigation. It would be interesting to see this quantum
mechanical result graphically animated and to also see if a plane wave
generated by the circulating TEQ charged photon model would generate the
quantum wave function for an electron.
Richard
On May 25, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Chip Akins < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Richard
I think that in many ways several of us are saying the same thing, but from
different perspectives. When I first read and studied your work regarding
the energy quantum and the photon and electron I was very intrigued, because
I had been contemplating an energy quantum solution as well.
Subsequent to that it seemed that fields are not fully understood, and that
fields are self-organizing. In that respect they would then become energy
quanta naturally.
If we start with the “energy quantum” as the foundation, then we will have
to ask “what is an energy quantum?”, but if we start with fields, we define
the energy quantum while solving the problem, it seems. This, and the lack
of definition for spin in Maxwell’s equations, have led me to believe that
the simplest solution requires extension of Maxwell’s equations in a manner
similar to John W’s work. Once this is done then the definition for the
energy quantum is provided, as well as an understanding of field topology
and motion. With this approach we can see how and why energy is quantized.
With such an approach we can understand the energy quantum and the particles
it creates. Whether we choose to use the nomenclature “energy quantum” or we
choose to refer to quantization mechanism and fields, we are describing the
same thing in principal.
However it is good to view this puzzle from many perspectives because that
method allows us to better find any flaws in our reasonings. So I am not
suggesting that you change your perspective, on the contrary, I am
suggesting only that it is compatible, and synonymous in many ways, with
other perspectives communicated in the group.
To use an analogy, we can describe a building by starting with a brick as
the most elementary part of that building, or we can describe the clay and
sand and how the brick is formed and fired as the starting place. Each
approach provides significant advantages in analyzing the complete picture.
In the group we each have our own perspectives, we sharpen each other by
challenging assumptions, and contributing ideas. But the multiple
perspective are rich in helping us to have a better system view.
One item that seems important is the binding force for the electron. This
issue has been a problem for more than a century in trying to understand
this simple, stable, and important particle. I now think that the binding
force is completely described by the correct set of field equations.
Starting from first principals and a very simple photon model, which has
spin, we can see that the required forces are present but not accounted for
in Maxwell’s equations. If this is the case, then it means that all forces
required to create particles are EM forces, even if we do not now recognize
them as such. It also seems to show that inertia is completely an EM caused
phenomenon.
So when we talk about fields, and assign a finite velocity to field
propagation, we arrive at a spiral structure for the spinning fields in
particles.
<image001.jpg>
The core of the spiral seems to be very compact, with an energy density
which is much higher than other areas of the field.
<image004.png>
I can’t help thinking about your energy quantum when I look at these
illustrations.
If we consider two different spin modes for these fields we can show a
topological source for charge. As John W., Martin, Vivian and I have done.
The simplified transverse spin mode for a photon would be similar to:
<image005.png>
Where the center of spin is at the junction of the negative and positive
ends of the field lines.
The longitudinal center of motion is the spin axis. The “transport radius”
is zero.
But the simplified spin mode for a charged particle would be more like:
<image006.png>
Where the “transport radius” is not the same as the spin axis, but is offset
so that the point of junction between the positive and negative ends of the
field lines is displaced significantly from the spin axis.
When we consider the momentum of the fields, and the assumed forces acting
on the fields, we can see that it is possible that both of these spin modes
are supported.
They give the appearance of an uncharged photon and a “charged photon”. But
it may be more precise to drop the photon nomenclature for the charged
version because it is really no longer a photon.
Chip
From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:12 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus
Chip, Martin, John D and others,
I suspect that the fundamental quantities of both spacetime and
particles/fields are frequency (directly proportional to the energy of a
particle and inversely proportional to time) and wavelength (inversely
proportional to the momentum of a particle and directly proportional to
space). Spin is related to energy-momentum topology. Electric charge seems
related to topology. Particles with rest mass are composed of charged
photons and related speed-of-light particles like charged gluons (normal
gluons are electrically uncharged but have color charge while quarks have
both electrical charge and color charge.) And I suspect that the energy
quantum (composing both speed-of-light particles and rest-mass particles) is
the unifying link between spacetime and particles/fields (and therefore
quantum mechanics/QED/QCD/quantum gravity) and may be the precursor as well
as the sustainer of both.
Richard
On May 24, 2015, at 7:06 AM, Mark, Martin van der <
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
wrote:
John D,
I fully agree with your reply to Chip, thanks for the details!
Please join us at the bar;-)
Cheers three!
Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 24 mei 2015 om 15:56 heeft John Duffield <
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> johnduffield at btconnect.com> het volgende
geschreven:
Chip:
I’m blue, you’re black:
As all of you know, after Relativity was introduced and adopted, the popular
belief for a while, was that space was empty, and that a media of space was
not required. Now however it seems that most physicists have accepted that
space is a media, with quantum attributes, and some level of energy density.
That popular belief was a cargo-cult false belief, because Einstein made it
clear in his 1920 Leyden Address that space was the “aether” of general
relativity. He made it clear that space was not some emptiness, but instead
was a thing that is “conditioned” by a massive body such as a star.
If space is a media, what would we perceive which is different from space
being empty?
That popular belief was a cargo-cult belief, because Einstein made it clear
in his 1920
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22n
either%20homogeneous%22> Leyden Address that space was the “aether” of
general relativity, and space was not empty.
Some would say there is no perceptible difference. But is that precisely
true?
No. Like Einstein said in <http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html>
1929, a field is a state of space.
If space is a media, it implies a preferred reference frame in space. This
is an item which would be difficult, or perhaps impossible to detect, but
for one item. If space is a media with a preferred reference frame, then
clocks in that reference frame would be the fastest clocks possible in the
universe.
There’s also the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#CMBR_dipole_anisot
ropy> CMB reference frame. It’s preferred in that it tells you your speed
through the universe. And whilst it isn’t an absolute frame in the strict
sense, the universe is as absolute as it gets.
One thing which would alter the ability to test this is a gross frame
dragging of space around massive bodies or concentrations of mass.
See
<http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/galaxy_sized_twist/>
the asymmetric Kerr metric as a source of CP violation. It’s to do with
galactic frame-dragging.
If space is a media, and if frame dragging does occur
It’s a popscience myth that it isn’t a medium, electromagnetic waves do not
propagate because an electric wave creates a magnetic wave and vice versa.
I’m confident that frame dragging does occur, and that the electron
electromagnetic field is a fierce example of it.
A definition of TIME is the underlying objective of this line of questions.
For I see two possibilities, one is that time is an inherent property of
space and, as the current relativity teaches, a fourth dimension in our
“spacetime”. The other is that time is simply the rate at which particles
can interact, caused by the fact that fields can only propagate at a finite
velocity, and that we are made of particles which are circularly confined
fields.
I feel the first explanation is less likely because it does not show cause,
it does not tell us why time is part of space, just that it is. The second
explanation is the one I currently prefer because it is a simple consequence
of the nature of space and particles, it shows cause.
I prefer it too, and so did Einstein. See
<http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/time-explained-t3.html> Time
Explained and
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942
> A World Without Time: the forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein.
Is time truly a fourth dimension at the lowest level of analysis of space?
No. We live in a world of space and motion. Our time dimension is derived
from motion. It’s a dimension in the sense of measure, not in the sense of
freedom of motion.
Regards
John D
From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpart
icles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 24 May 2015 14:24
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus
Hi All
We are working on the foundations of physics. Studying and trying to
decipher the result of experiment in a causal manner.
As we do that it keeps bringing me back to the nature of space itself. John
M has made some good points about starting from the makeup of space and
working our way up from there. John D has communicated a solid and basic
approach to many of the issues. Many of us have proposed models, field
formulations, and a host of other possible explanations for what we observe.
As we reflect on what we have done and what we still need to do, there are
some things which may still need to be addressed and answered before we can
make progress in certain areas.
For example, the nature of space and time, are fundamental to understanding
physics. Some of us feel we have a reasonable handle on this, and it is a
very basic part of what we are doing, but I am thinking that we do not yet
have it quite right. For the endeavor we have undertaken, I think close is
not good enough.
First I want to state clearly that I do not yet propose to have the answers
to the nature of space, all I have is conjecture so far.
As all of you know, after Relativity was introduced and adopted, the popular
belief for a while, was that space was empty, and that a media of space was
not required. Now however it seems that most physicists have accepted that
space is a media, with quantum attributes, and some level of energy density.
However many of the subtle suggestions engendered during that time when it
was perceived that space was empty, and much of the “foundation” of
relativity is still based on there being no media which constitutes space.
If space is a media, what would we perceive which is different from space
being empty? Some would say there is no perceptible difference. But is that
precisely true?
If space is a media, it implies a preferred reference frame in space. This
is an item which would be difficult, or perhaps impossible to detect, but
for one item.
If space is a media with a preferred reference frame, then clocks in that
reference frame would be the fastest clocks possible in the universe. All
clocks in all other inertial frames would be slower. One thing which would
alter the ability to test this is a gross frame dragging of space around
massive bodies or concentrations of mass.
It seems that relativity has been tested with regards to the slowing of
clocks with relative velocity to a precision of about 1.6% to 10% depending
on which experiments you prefer. But of course these tests are at low
relative velocities and only represent a narrow prat of the spectrum of
tests which would be required to absolutely validate the entire curve. And
an error of 1.6% is still a substantial error for this type of validation.
If space is a media, and if frame dragging does occur, again it would be
difficult to verify the existence of the media using clocks, depending on
how much frame dragging there is. If space is a media, how can we calculate
the frame dragging and quantify it?
A definition of TIME is the underlying objective of this line of questions.
For I see two possibilities, one is that time is an inherent property of
space and, as the current relativity teaches, a fourth dimension in our
“spacetime”. The other is that time is simply the rate at which particles
can interact, caused by the fact that fields can only propagate at a finite
velocity, and that we are made of particles which are circularly confined
fields.
I feel the first explanation is less likely because it does not show cause,
it does not tell us why time is part of space, just that it is. The second
explanation is the one I currently prefer because it is a simple consequence
of the nature of space and particles, it shows cause.
One thing I think we must remember as we construct a physical model is that
we are dealing with the fundamentals and foundations, the building blocks so
to speak, and in that endeavor we will probably find instances where a
phenomenon like the definition of time, or the definition of charge, or the
definition of spin, is not the same at the micro level as it is at our macro
observable level. If we do our job well we will discover the causes and
sources of many of these types of phenomena. At levels below the causal
level for any of these phenomena, the macro rules no longer apply in full.
After saying that, a question would naturally arise, if time as we measure
it is merely the result of the interaction of particles, how and when do we
incorporate the dimension of time in our calculations? Is the development of
time at such a low level that we should include it in all calculations, just
as relativity teaches? Or does time come into play only at the particle
level, and the finite velocity of light predominates at lower levels? Is
time truly a fourth dimension at the lowest level of analysis of space? Or
does it just appear to be that way from our perspectives due to the nature
of our particulate construction and measurements?
Any and all opinion and argument is eagerly appreciated. If you could please
let me know your take on this and the reasons you feel that way I will be
grateful.
Chip
From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:02 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus
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 [
<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org>
general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticle
s.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [ <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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,
<image001.png>
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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 <
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> 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
<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65335/how-do-moving-charges-prod
uce-magnetic-fields> explain the magnetic field around the
current-in-the-wire using length contraction, but IMHO that’s a fairy tale,
and I prefer a
<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184055/atomic-explanation-of-mag
netic-field/184079?noredirect=1#comment388570_184079> “screw” answer.
Regards
John D
From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpart
icles.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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpart
icles.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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
general-bounces+chipakins=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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 <
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> 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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Richard
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
Chip
From: General [mailto: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
general-bounces+chipakins=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
mules333 at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_____
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original message.
<image001.png><image001.png>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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/20150528/c0778628/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list