[General] Wilczek's electron

Sat Apr 16 22:46:57 PDT 2016

Hello Andrew,

     I think that you are making good progress in your analysis of continuous electron-positron pair production from an energetic photon (greater than 1.022 MeV), and of electron-positron annihilation also.
Since you make frequent reference to “rest mass” and “relativistic mass” in your article, there is a good summary article on the usage of these terms in “On the concept of relativistic mass” by Peter M. Brown at http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687 which is worth a look.

     Recently I showed ( https://www.academia.edu/24307968/A_Photon_Has_Inertial_Mass_hv_c_2_in_Mirror_Reflection_and_Compton_Scattering ) that a photon may be considered to have inertial mass M=hf/c^2 through a simple analysis of momentum changes in a photon being reflected from a mirror or from an electron. This latest result is consistent with my proposal that the inertial mass m (and also the rest mass m) of a resting electron is explained by its being composed of a circulating spin-1/2 charged photon of circulating momentum p = hf/c = Eo/c  = mc. A ordinary photon with energy E=mc^2 and momentum p=mc has inertial mass M=m and rest mass 0, while a circulating spin-1/2 charged photon with energy E=mc^2 and momentum p=mc has inertial mass M=m and also rest mass m when it is a circulating photon forming an electron, as derived in (https://www.academia.edu/23184598/Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia_and_Relativistic_Energy_Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin-_Charged_Photon_Electron_Model ).

      How does this relate to your work on continuous e-p production? You speak of an electron and positron’s “mass” (meaning rest mass) and charge being formed continuously in electron-positron pair production from a single photon in the vicinity of a charged nucleus. I think your analysis would benefit from the hypothesis that the evolving rest masses of the electron and positron are due to the continuous curling-up of the momentum mc (or more) of the two spin-1/2  photons that are produced from a single photon (of energy E=1.022 MeV or more) during e-p pair production. As these two spin-1/2 charged photons (produced from the spin-1 photon) curl up continuously after evolving from the spin-1 photon, they also continuously generate their rest masses (which both go continuously from 0 to m) and their electric charges (which go from 0 to -e and +e). But all this time that the electron and positron and their rest masses and charges are evolving continuously, the  spin-1/2 charged photons maintain the magnitude of their original momenta each of mc (or slightly more) and inertial masses M=m (or slightly more), from the time they are formed from the single photon to and including the time they are fully curled up to form the electron and a positron. The curling-up process gives the proto-electron and proto-positron their gradually increasing rest masses and their charges, while the inertial masses of the spin-1/2 photons are unchanged during this process.

     Richard

> On Apr 16, 2016, at 3:31 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> <Wilchek enigmatic electron.pdf><Symmetry breaking in photon 14 +AM6.docx>_______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="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/20160416/48d6b650/attachment.htm>