[General] Wilczek's electron

Sat Apr 16 10:19:08 PDT 2016

Andrew and Albrecht,
A few comments and references
1. In the "spinning ball of charge" description, Wilczek alludes to the Arnowitt, Deser, and Misner (ADM) model from the 1960 where some of the first efforts in quantum gravity were prominent.

Gravitational-Electromagnetic Coupling and the Classical Self-Energy Problem

Phys. Rev. 120 – Published 1 October 1960

Gravitational-Electromagnetic Coupling and the Classical Self-Energy Problem
Interior Schwarzschild Solutions and Interpretation of Source Terms

For completeness, the 1962 ADM reference is included.[gr-qc/0405109] The Dynamics of General Relativity

ADM formalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A couple of papers that may be of use to this discussion generated by Wilczek's article include

Phys. Rev. D 77, 104018 – Published 16 May 2008
ADM canonical formalism for gravitating spinning objects

 F. Rohrlich  The dynamics of a charged sphere and the electron    "The little known relativistic equations of motion of a surface-charged sphere are presented.Their proof and validity limits are discussed." 
2. Wilczek's vague reference to "elementary electromagnetism" at first seems to be Maxwell equations, and yet is suggestive of Quantum Field Theory. He appears to ignore gravitational coupling and in doing so avoid the issues of quantum gravity
3. The issue of the electric dipole results in speculations that might be classically explained by zitterbewegung with the 720 degree cycle. 
Where did the electric dipole go?
A multipole solution might result in a cancellation of the electric dipoles within the electron and thereby supporting existing evidence.  Quadrupoles might respond to experimental efforts in such a way as to redirect any dipole moment. 
In any electron model for zbw the electric dipole flips every 1/2 cycle, and in doing so, results in a net dipole of near zero. One approach has been to use a circulating charged particle to topologically describe the observed geometry resulting in various toroid models (Williamson/van der Mark, Gautier, and others). 

A difficulty within the confines of an electron might be that spacetime is curved. Speculatively, if one considers at least within the electron a variable speed of light (VSL) theory, then there may be a subluminal dipole and a superluminal dipole. A minor issue is superluminal electrodynamics.
>From A. Einstein 1951 autobiography
    "Enough of this. Newton, forgive me; you found the only way which, in your age, was just aboutpossible for a man of highest thought- and creative power. The concepts, which you created, areeven today still guiding our thinking in physics, although we now know that they will have to bereplaced by others farther removed from the sphere of immediate experience, if we aim at aprofounder understanding of relationships."    

Best
David 
      From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> 
 Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 3:31 AM
 Subject: [General] Wilczek's electron

Dear Albrecht,

You mentioned an article that seems to counter, rather than support, your model of the binary electron. You state: "On the other hand there was a kind of indication for two constituents described by the article of Frank Wilczek about the electron in Nature in summer 2013." (attached)."

Some statements from the article:

"The electron is effectively a spinning ball of charge, and elementary electromagnetism tells us that this generates
a magnetic dipole field." 

"An electric dipole, should it exist, would generate broadly similar corrections. But no such field has been detected."

"So far there is only an upper bound for the electric dipole moment. This is an extraordinary 17 orders of magnitude smaller than one might expect — naively, given the electron’s effective size." [.... estimated to be roughly 2.4 × 10^–12 metres]. 

Despite the lack of measured dipole, he states:
"So a non-zero electric dipole moment for electrons is a theoretical possibility."
This seems to be the only support for your model from that angle.

On the other hand, you are not expecting your twin particles to be attracted by electrostatic forces (you suggest something like strong nuclear forces). Therefore, an electric dipole would not be expected; some other form of dipole would be. But, if no electric dipole, what causes the EM fields?

While I find most of Wilczek's statements to be 'correct' and useful, I consider some to be just wrong. Nevertheless, it is a useful reference. It is not as authoritative as his “Origins of Mass,” arXiv:1206.7114v2 22 Aug 2012.  However, it took me many hours of work to derive real benefit from this latter paper. But now I have a new 'tool'. 

I did not find his "enigmatic electron" to be as useful. I have attached a preprint to a paper that I will submit this week that references both of Wilczek's papers. I hope that it will be published and might open the way for new thinking in the photon to lepton transition.

Best regards,

Andrew

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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/20160416/82461f11/attachment.htm>