[General] Nature of charge

Sat Nov 28 11:45:04 PST 2015

Hello All,

Since I am the probably the only one in the group to publish a quantifiable
description the nature of charge and electric fields, I decided that I
would rejoin the discussion after a long absence.  The next paragraph will
be about charge, but this paragraph will make a brief introduction.  I will
begin by analyzing the use of the word “field” in an explanation of
charge.  The standard model has 17 named “fields” which overlap and fill
all of space. All fundamental particles are described as “excitations” of
their respective fields.   I believe that all the 17 fields of the standard
model are just different resonances or distortions of the single truly
universal field which I am calling the “spacetime field”.  In my model of
the universe, zero point energy is described as quantum mechanical waves in
spacetime primarily at Planck frequency.  These waves displace space by ±
Planck length (Lp) such that the distance between points can vary by ± Lp.
Also the waves modulate the rate of time such that perfect clocks can
differ by ± Planck time (± Tp).  This means that spacetime has a type of
energy density that produces numerous effects which we interpret as merely
being mysterious properties of spacetime.  For example, we accept that the
speed of light is a universal speed limit. However, if space is an empty
void, why should uncharged particles such as neutrinos have a speed limit?
You can quote special relativity and say that a particle’s mass/energy
approaches infinity as the speed approaches the speed of light.  However,
why does this happen?  In my book I show that this is ultimately is the
result of particles being quantized waves propagating in the medium of the
spacetime field which is a sea of Planck length/time waves in spacetime.
All other constants of nature (G, ħ and εo) are also the result of the
spacetime being a sea of Planck length/time waves in spacetime.  We know
that matter curves spacetime, but exactly how matter curves spacetime is a
mystery unless the wave structure of spacetime is acknowledged.  I derive
the curvature of spacetime produced by a spacetime based particle existing
in the spacetime field.       

Now I will turn to charge and electric fields.  In the attached paper
Spacetime Based Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, I
address charge and electric fields in section 5 which starts on page 13.  I
propose that an electric field is a quantifiable asymmetric distortion of
the spacetime field.  The proposed conversion of the unit of charge
(Coulomb) to an asymmetric distortion of the spacetime field (sea of Planck
length/time waves).  All fields have a physical explanation.  In equation
26 of the “Foundation” paper I propose a “charge conversion constant”

 η = (G/4πεoc4)1/2

This constant has units of meters/Coulomb.  It converts the unit of charge
(Coulomb) to an asymmetrical distortion of the spacetime field with units
of length. I give some examples of the use of this constant in the
foundation paper.  In the past I have challenged members of this group to
find a single example where the use of η gives an unreasonable physical
interpretation or a wrong mathematical answer. The “Foundation” paper was
published in April of this year and it has received a lot of attention.  It
has been downloaded over 350 times from either the ResearchGate website or
from my personal website: 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Macken 

http://onlyspacetime.com/ . 

The second attached paper titled: Energetic Spacetime: the New Aether has
been similarly well received.  I have not given the full description of how
charge distorts spacetime in this brief post because that is covered in the
two attached papers and in my book (chapters 9 to 11).  The “Aether”
paper quantifies the energy density of the spacetime field and shows how it
has the properties of a relativistic aether.  Both electric fields and
photons require the existence of the spacetime field. The prediction is
that the spacetime field has a quantifiable limit.  This implies that there
should be a limit to the maximum intensity which the spacetime field (the
new aether) can transmit.  The Foundation paper shows that this prediction
is correct since this maximum intensity limit corresponds to the condition
which makes a black hole without any consideration of gravity.  Similarly,
the model predicts that a vacuum capacitor should have a theoretical
maximum voltage where the distortion of the finite properties of the
spacetime field reaches its limit. The Foundation paper describes this in
more detail and proves that the limit also exists.

John M.

From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of
Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 9:25 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; John Williamson
<John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
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: Re: [General] Nature of charge

Hello Everybody: To me “charge” is an emergent property of the self-loped
in-phase localized EM wave-like motion of the CTF (Complex Tension Field).
This localized motion give rise to the “particle-like” (wevicle)
properties. Charge is quantized because its emergence (existence) is out of
a quantized motion (self-looped in-phase). Otherwise, two charge-less gamma-
rays interacting with some nucleus, could not have generated electron and
positron pair with “quantized” charges; and vice versa.

Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 10:15 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; John Williamson
Cc: pete at leathergoth.com <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> ; Nick Bailey;
Ariane Mandray; Mark, Martin van der; David Williamson
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of charge

Hello John,

    Speaking of “turtles all the way down”, that’s NOT how I understand
electric charge and I have also never said or implied this. You wrote “
This is what I mean by your own  “logic” stopping you. You are thinking
that the only way for something to have charge is for it to composed of
charged stuff. This is you stopping yourself thinking about it by
convincing yourself - a priori - that it cannot be otherwise - by saying to
yourself. “How could this be otherwise if a circulating charged photon is
to correctly model an electron?” This is what I mean by not using
imagination. It is a chosen self-shutdown to free thinking! “ So John you
are quite wrong as well as quite presumptuous to claim that this is how I
think about electric charge. I think that it is equally wrong logically to
think that matter is composed of matter-stuff particles “all the way
down” which is what materialistic thinking in physics usually implies
metaphysically (I’m not suggesting that you think this way.) 

    Anyway, I DO think that since electric charge is experimentally
quantized - as is also indicated by alpha = e^2/(hbar c)  (in CGS units)
giving e = sqrt( alpha hbar c)  -   that electric charge is likely to be
created by the geometry of the circulation of energy  - the circulating
photon in the case of the electron -  in charged particles. This is also
the easiest way to explain positive and negative electric charge as being
created by mirror images of helically circulating energy patterns within an
electron and positron. I think that you and Martin are therefore correct
that the double-loop Compton wavelength photon circling in a resting
electron in your and Martin’s 1997 article (or with the double-loop-per-
wavelength charged photon’s helical trajectory in my relativistic moving
electron model) is part of what creates the electron’s charge. A closed
single-looping 1 Compton wavelength photon would be uncharged. A neutrino,
composed of a different circulating energy pattern, is uncharged. Dark
matter particles (if they exist) could be composed of still another shape
of uncharged energy circulation, as I propose in my "cosmic quantum" paper.

     I also don’t think that the electric field and magnetic field of a
moving electric charge is more fundamental or primary than the electric
charge, though electric charge may be defined mathematically (in Gauss’
law) as the divergence of an electric field, or in some other mathematical
way as in QED. Math doesn’t imply causality. First of all this approach
leaves the origin and nature of the field unexplained. I think (as is
implied in my circulating charged photon model of the relativistic electron
generating the electron’s “matter-wave”,  combined with my energy
quantum approach as expressed in other articles, that a circulating energy
quantum’s particle-like aspect generates the energy quantum's field-like
(or wave-like) aspect, which predicts statistically where the energy
quantum's particle-like aspect will be detected in experiments. This
quantum particle-field-particle unitary approach would be the case for
uncharged particles (like regular uncharged photons) as well as for
electrons (charged photons) and other quantum particles. In short: quantum
particle predicts quantum field which predicts quantum particle. Neither
the particle nor the field aspect of the energy quantum is primary. Both
are aspects of the "energy quantum" (or just the “quantum”) that predicts
both wave and particle aspects of the quantum world.

     Richard

On Nov 26, 2015, at 12:22 AM, John Williamson
<John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> >
wrote:

Hi Richard,

blue

  _____  

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.
natureoflightandparticles.org> general-
bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Richard Gauthier [ <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 2:56 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc:  <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> pete at leathergoth.com; Nick Bailey;
Ariane Mandray; Mark, Martin van der; David Williamson
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of charge

Hello John,

   Thank you for your extended comments.

   First, I did not at all say that Einstein did not use insight, intuition
and imagination. Obviously he did to a huge extent. “ You need to do what
you were accusing Einstein of not doing! Intuition, insight and
imagination! “. I said that he could have probably increased his intuition
(why does this idea offend some people?-Einstein was human too) through a
systematic practice. Yogis call this practical approach intuitional science
(though it might be more accurately called intuitional engineering since it
refers to a practical, applied, systematic methodology). It doesn’t take
the place of logic and reason. A yogi once said “Even if a small child
says something logical it should be accepted. And even if the lotus-born
Brahma’ (the mythological creator of the universe) says something
illogical, it should be rejected like a straw.” 

Not necessarily - logic can get in the way. It was not intuition which
stopped Einstein in making progress in trying to develop an electromagnetic
electron, but (false) logic. He managed to convince himself, using logic,
that a certain path was not possible when ,in fact, it was. Also it is
logic which is stopping you understanding what charge is - not insight!

To give examples example "big is small" sounds logically inconsistent - yet
in a quantum particle big size means necessarily small energy and vice-
versa. Also what about "light is heavy"? Logic is after the fact of the
intuition .. but it can lead you far astray with statements that sound
sensible - but are already so far from the truth that one is already lost.

   Anyway, it could take me years (if ever) to develop enough intuition,
insight and imagination to understand your recent electron model and its
new high-dimensional algebra which is currently Greek to me. But I am
eagerly waiting to hear of an endorsement of your new electron model from
one or more highly-qualified independent physicists who DO understand all
the math with all its subtleties. 

You and me both! This stuff is hard for everyone though. It takes seasoned
professors back to the days where they first struggled with the concept of
complex numbers. It is hard - but not totally incomprehensible.

    It the meantime, I hope you won’t continue to misunderstand my
relatively simple electron model. You wrote: “  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!  “. But the circulating charged photon that I
have proposed to model the electron is NOT massless. In my sentence just
before your comment, I wrote : "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. “ . 

If something is spin half it is, logically, not a photon. Photons are spin
one.
If something has rest-mass it is, logically, not a photon. Photons are rest-
massless.
If something is charged it is, logically, not a photon. Photons have no
charge.

So this is exactly what I am objecting to. A thing with the properties of
an electron is an electron and not a photon.  

 So I am NOT AT ALL proposing that the charged spin 1/2 photon is massless.
Its rest mass IS the electron’s rest mass, as its charge and spin ARE the
electron’s charge and spin. How could this be otherwise if a circulating
charged photon is to correctly model an electron? That would not be
logical. 

This is what I mean by your own  “logic” stopping you. You are thinking
that the only way for something to have charge is for it to composed of
charged stuff. This is you stopping yourself thinking about it by
convincing yourself - a priori - that it cannot be otherwise - by saying to
yourself. “How could this be otherwise if a circulating charged photon is
to correctly model an electron?” This is what I mean by not using
imagination. It is a chosen self-shutdown to free thinking!

It is simply not so that the only way is to make the thing “charged” is
by having charged constituents.  Not so - otherwise one could isolate the
charged stuff. Charged photon or charge-vot or whatever. No such thing! Not
so, or pure (uncharged) energy could never produce charged particles.

 Experimentally, one sees charge associated only with particles. Further,
the stable charged particles are fermions. Further, charge is quantised.
This is what one needs explain. Charge in terms of basics, not charge in
terms of sub-charges. One needs to think what charge is, not explain
charge, circularly, in terms of charge.

So what is charge?  Charge is defined in 2 ways in modern physics. Either
as a  non-zero field divergence (radial electric field in Maxwell) - or as
an energy exchange (QED). The new theory explains both - without putting
any charge in. The radial field comes from double looping the internal
field components, the energy exchange from an understanding of the process
of p-vot exchange. The quantisation comes from a proper understanding of
relativity. All the experimental properties of charge to an external
observer without putting any charge in.

Your new electron model also has associated electric charge -e, spin 1/2
and the electron's rest mass that it gets from its p-vot and its various
other vots, if I may speak very simplistically and I’m sure imprecisely.  

You are right that this is too simple. This is not merely imprecise, but
just wrong. No, the theory does not “get” charge and spin from more of
the same. These things are first explained, then calculated, from first
principles in the new theory and its resulting models.

Vot is not just quantities of charge, spin and so on. The vot is just root-
energy. It does not gain charge by having sub-charges, charge-vot or
whatever. Charge manifests by a force free motion of rest-mass and field -
as described by the new field equations. It is the result of a non-trivial
re-circulating topological flow of field momentum. Don’t worry you will
get there! It is hard though, and will take time.

     Richard

Regards, John.

On Nov 23, 2015, at 10:15 PM, John Williamson
<John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> >
wrote:

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>
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 <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Nick Bailey < <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> nick at bailey-family.org.
uk>; David Williamson < <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>
david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>;  <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> pete at leathergoth.
com; Mark, Martin van der < <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> 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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=
1> 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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=
1> 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/20151128/8f1ee34a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: QM FoundationF.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 483267 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151128/8f1ee34a/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SPIE_New_Aether_2015.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 552531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151128/8f1ee34a/attachment-0001.pdf>