[General] Nature of charge

Tue Nov 24 11:16:01 PST 2015

All:

Anybody know Alexander Unzicker <http://www.alexander-unzicker.de/> ?

I know him a bit, and I think he's got some very interesting things to say.

Regards

JohnD

PS: By the way, this dates from 1920:

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: 24 November 2015 06:15
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: pete at leathergoth.com; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Ariane
Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; Mark, Martin van der
<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>; David Williamson
<david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>
Subject: [General] Nature of charge

Hello Chip and Richard,

I had been meaning to add to this post for some time, but did not find a
free moment till now.

Will comment below, first on Chip's post, then on Richard's. This is also
relevant to John Hodge's recent post on the nature of charge.

Feel like going in red this morning ..

of comments from what a model.

Hi Richard

Correct me if I am wrong here.  It seems that there is not a requirement
that the electron actually be a sphere, but only that its scattering
characteristics are the same as that of a sphere.  Do you think this
statement is correct?

Yes and no. What is known is that the scattering is sphere-like - in that
there is no "structure function" for the electron. This means, as I have
said many times before, that the scattering is consistent with it being a
SINGLE particle, with a spherical - inverse square law of scattering. 

Saying the electron must "be a sphere" anyway begs the question - what  kind
of sphere? Is it a 3-sphere in 3-space? A four-sphere in 4D space? A sphere
in the three components of the electric field (a bivector space)?  Something
more complicated than any of these?

I'm afraid, ladies and gentlemen, that the answer is the latter, though of
the three specific static cases I think the third case comes closest. The
electron, however, is certainly not static - it is very very dynamic.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:46 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Cc: Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk
<mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> >; David Williamson
<david.williamson at ed.ac.uk <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk> >;
pete at leathergoth.com <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> ; Mark, Martin van der
<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >
Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model.

Hello John D and Albrecht,

   We're not quite there by merely replacing Albrecht's two circulating
massless particles by a double-looping photon. By doing this the radius of
the circle drops from hbar/mc to hbar/2mc because the total loop length is
still one Compton wavelength.  A double loop of length 1 Compton wavelength
h/mc has half the radius of a single loop and therefore (if the circulating
photon carries charge -e moving at light speed) half the calculated magnetic
moment of Albrecht's model, i.e. 1/2 Bohr magneton. The loss in magnetic
moment from Albrecht's 2-particle model has to be made up in some other way.
But this double-looping photon model of the electron has spin 1/2 hbar while
Albrecht's two-particle model has spin 1 hbar. No argument about retarded
light-speed forces between his 2 light-speed circling massless particles
will bring the total spin of the two-particle system down to exactly 1/2
hbar while keeping its magnetic moment at 1 Bohr magneton. That would be
like pulling a magical rabbit out of a hat which so far only Dirac with his
equation has been able to do successfully (he wasn't called a magician for
nothing.) The Williamson - van der Mark 1997 electron model comes close with
its proposed centrally located static electric charge -e inferred from their
twisting double-looping uncharged photon's inward pointing electric fields
at the model's equator. 

The WvdM model does get the magic rabbit right. Not only that it gets the
QED first order correction to the magic rabbit right (about 1 part in a
thousand bigger) - which the Dirac model does not do.

(But what happened to their double-looping photon's electric field at and
near the model's two poles?) . 

Richard, you are still thinking about a little photon bullet whizzing around
in 3-space only. This is not good enough. You need to do what you were
accusing Einstein of not doing! Intuition, insight and imagination! 

The original  1997 paper already explained the transport around the torus
was not in space but in space-time. The rotations are not just in 3-space
but in a higher-dimensional space. In three space one cannot have,
simultaneously the two axes of "rotation" that are needed for the WvdM
model. In 4-space one can. This is the "quantum bicycle" I keep trying to
explain to you. A 4-spatial rotation is still (in my present view) too
simple, but illustrates (one of the) salient points. Imagine a space x y z
w. Now allow a rotation in the xy plane, with a simultaneous rotation in the
zw plane. Now let the path traced by a point (x y z w) fill 4-space. Let the
length of this path (x squared plus y squared plus z squared plus w squared)
oscillate in phase with "rotations". This is the program I implemented in
the little java applet I circulated a few months ago.  What does one observe
when one projects this "motion" onto 3-space? You can find lots of these
projections on the web if you look. It is kind of difficult to do it in your
head - but dead easy to implement it in a computer . Anyway, in one kind of
projection one observes a sphere, in another a torus. For such flows, it is
perfectly possible (even necessary) to have a spherical projection for the
electric field, while having a toroidal form in a projection onto other
spaces. Thinking in just 3D space severely limits ones imagination!

Now the motion I'm envisioning nowadays is more complicated than merely
4-dimesional, as there are far more "planes" than just the six in 4-D space.
The electron rotation has three rotation planes (at least!) Looking at the
photon solution (eq 21) one rotation is a normal spatial plane (xy), the
other in the "plane" formed from the scalar and the pseudoscalar. This
latter pair are isomorphic to complex numbers. This means the photon "twist"
is already in a 4-component space, just not that of x y z t, but that of
scalar, pseudocalar, electric and magnetic field "space". Now to get the
electron solution, one takes that  already "4-dimensional" motion and lets
it loop again "rotating" it in yet another plane in the even subset (of
eight!) dimensions.  The resulting object is rotating in (at least) nine
"dimensions" (eight modulated by "time"). What one observes is a projection
of this. What is required by experiment is that the interaction part (the
electric field part) is spherical, at least if one does not come within
touching distance when direct field interference kicks in. At these
distances the Pauli exclusion principle kicks in, as described in my 2012
paper at MENDEL.

This model can't convincingly explain how a sphere enclosing a
double-looping uncharged photon can have a non-zero divergence of its
electric field (indicating a non-zero enclosed electric charge) without
violating Gauss' law (the first Maxwell equation). 

This is only true if you take the electron to be constituted a massless
photon (as you do).  Let me try, once again, to convince you.

Look at Gauss's law in the full set of equations in my paper.  This is
equation 6. There is another term, as well as the electric field divergence
(which is the DEFINITION of "charge") corresponding to root-mass exchange.
This is the nature of charge in QED. The electric field divergence, in the
new equations, is non zero if there is mass-energy exchange.  That is (part
of) the root of charge. It is not the whole story - as photon exchange needs
ALL eight (well at least seven) of the even terms to explain it properly. It
does mean that Gauss's law needs to be extended by allowing for mass-energy
exchange though. This is anyway the case, if you think about it, in both QED
and the inhomogenous Maxwell equations (where,in both, you put in the
"charge by hand!).

Given the state- of play of Martin and my model in 2015 there are now two
ways to calculate the charge in the resulting model. The first is to use the
curvature, and the calculated electric field, to get the charge in terms of
Plancks' constant (or vice versa). This is what Martin and I did in out 1997
paper. The other way is to integrate the cross-section of charge-charge
interactions over the universe - which requires a knowledge of the number of
charges in the universe and their distribution. This is harder. Both give
values for the elementary charge within the right ballpark, however.

I think that in order to retain a viable double-looping photon model of the
electron, one may have to bite the bullet and accept that the circulating
double-looping photon is itself electrically charged and also has a rest
mass of 0.511 MeV/c^2 and a spin of 1/2 hbar.

Absolutely not! You cannot claim to get charge out if you put it in! Also -
I have said this before and will not change my mind - you cannot put it in
and stay with a massless photon. You just can't Do the maths! Integrate the
mass-energy in any one frame due to the charge alone and you will get a
non-zero mass. This mass will be minimal where the field is radial - and
will increase for any other frame. End of story. You can SAY you have a
"charged massless photon"- but this does not make it consistent with
reality! Sorry! 

You can say (and be right) that you have a charged electron with rest mass
(if this is what you mean) - but this is just what we have all been saying
all along - so what is the difference?

   By the way, Albrecht's two circulating particles may each have no rest
mass as he describes, but they certainly each carry 1/2 of 0.511 MeV of a
resting electron's total energy. This strongly implies that they are two
circulating photons (or gluons?) each having energy 1/2 x 0.511 MeV. This
also gives his electron model a spin of 1 hbar.

      with best regards,

           Richard

Regards, from John.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151124/c74282df/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 93453 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151124/c74282df/attachment.jpeg>