[General] Nature of charge
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Tue Nov 24 12:27:40 PST 2015
I know him a bit. We had some discussions some time ago and I have read
his books. I follow his positions in some points, in others not.
Particularly I am much more critical about Einstein.
Albrecht
Am 24.11.2015 um 20:16 schrieb John Duffield:
>
> 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.natureoflightandparticles.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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151124/40abbea1/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/20151124/40abbea1/attachment.jpeg>
More information about the General
mailing list