[General] Origin of the electron's inertia Gauthier's model & ADM model

[John Williamson]

Hello Richard and Jack,

Thank you for including me in on this one Richard.

Jack you are right that few mainstream physicists are interested in this: but they should be. Positronium – two fermions - decays to two (or three depending on the spin-state) photons. Fermions to bosons. The reverse process also occurs – bosons to fermions. How this process works needs to be understood - not relegated to the mere annihilation or creation of quantum numbers representing things no-one truly understands.

A detailed theory of the process – the dynamics of pair annihilation – is needed – and notably absent in relativistic quantum mechanics or quantum –electrodynamics – which come closest. People such as Finkelstein, Ranada,  Vigier, Merzbacher, Hiley, Enz and Dirac ( some of his last work in the early 50’s) have worked and are working on ways to deal with this.

I agree with you though, Richard’s model, while it has some nice features, is too simple to encompass the problem. However, so is the pilot wave picture, though Basil Hiley (amongst others) is making some very significant progress within this framework.  I also agree that the “trajectory” picture for a photon is far too simplistic. One has a self-confined mode structure – perhaps, but the space of field is not the same as the space of space and, in my view, mixing them up is a big mistake.

On the other hand saying that “One can try to make classical models of the electron and other real particles only in the context of the Bohm pilot wave theory where they are the hidden variables” is nonsense. It is tantamount to saying that one may only think about the concept of “love” in English. The fact that work has been done in this context does not exclude others – neither does “classical” physics contradict quantum mechanics or vice-versa – there are merely elements of both that lie outside the scope of the other. Conclusion: both (sets of) theories – and the pilot wave picture as well, are still incomplete.

There are now a group of us trying to make sense of and progress a fundamental understanding of the underlying nature of light and material particles. Martin and I are working on more advanced theories which reduce to the classical and (relativistic) quantum mechanical approached in different limits. Martin is working on developing Bateman’s method within a Clifford-Dirac algebra. I am working on a new relativistic quantum mechanics which differs from that of Dirac in the way that it treats the mass. These may sound quite different – and there are differences at the moment – but they overlap to a great extent and turn out to have a raft of features in common. At the same time Martin and I are working together on a paper on the mathematics of invariance and inversion in relativistic space-time. This serves to underpin some of the rationale needed for a development of the origin of quantum spin  – but that is another story.

Since you have asked – a simpler story of the relationship between fermions and bosons (or vice versa) is possible to explain. There are aspects of this in my papers at Cybcom 2008, Mendel2012 and SPIE optics and photonics 2015. Put simply, taking a twisting field and then folding it such that all allowed paths forms  a single wavelength leads to an object with the internal structure of a physical spinor.  There is a picture of such an object in my SPIE contribution last August and of a similar object in the link Richard sent you.

Regards, John Williamson.
________________________________
From: Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 11:58 PM
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: John G. Williamson; martin Mark; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; lyndalovon at gmail.com
Subject: Re: Origin of the electron's inertia Gauthier's model & ADM model

Hello Jack,

    John Williamson ( jgw at elec.gla.ac.uk<redir.aspx?REF=je_uE4u5X6xqKSdDbgjsuv_foPxdLlo0Hul33aLhv6hjVMK9xTfTCAFtYWlsdG86amd3QGVsZWMuZ2xhLmFjLnVr> )  “Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?” at  http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/electron.pdf<redir.aspx?REF=7rZLi4nXVHXnWGjU37t8NmEyf92HhIxim3WyqTQJ1j1jVMK9xTfTCAFodHRwOi8vaG9tZS5jbGFyYW5ldC5ubC91c2Vycy9iZW5zY2hvcC9lbGVjdHJvbi5wZGY.>  is a theoretical physicist who worked at CERN for several years, then at Philips in Netherlands for several years with physicist Martin van der Mark, and now is a physics professor at the University of Glasgow. He now has new electro-magnetic photon and a electron models much more complex than mine. He doesn’t agree with my electron model (liking his own electron model much better) but is aware of my electron model since we both presented our models during several sessions of a sub-conference “What are Photons?” at the SPIE Photonics and Optics conference in San Diego last August. Williamson's approach to getting a spin 1/2 electron from a spin 1 photon sounds a bit like Finkelstein’s.

I’m proposing that photons (charged or uncharged) have trajectories but at the same time the photons on these trajectories generate quantum plane waves that predict the probability of finding charged or uncharged photons at a later time and place. So the photons generate the quantum waves which predict the photons.

       Richard

On Feb 14, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Jack Sarfatti <internetscienceeducation at gmail.com<redir.aspx?REF=f1xbtvzdNz157pDU5Fzv6pQrJUX_W_agX2dzOcyLpzZjVMK9xTfTCAFtYWlsdG86aW50ZXJuZXRzY2llbmNlZWR1Y2F0aW9uQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ..>> wrote:

One can try to make classical models of the electron and other real particles only in the context of the Bohm pilot wave theory where they are the hidden variables.

There are topological papers getting spin 1/2 out of spin 1 as classical field theories I think by Finkelstein?

However, what you have done is too simplistic, hand waving.

What is a photon trajectory? - light rays are only in the short wave geometric optics approximation neglecting diffraction.

Show me one serious theoretical physicist who has even claimed to understand your model, much less agree with it.


On Feb 14, 2016, at 3:22 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<redir.aspx?REF=cFthQuHp37LLrewzq68fWrR98_08ed7aKxVaMTrXGshjVMK9xTfTCAFtYWlsdG86cmljaGdhdXRoaWVyQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ..>> wrote:

Hi Jack,

    I have a more detailed (unpublished so far) model for a spin 1/2 charged photon that can be incorporated into my current  model.  My superluminal spin 1/2 charged photon model resembles my superluminal spin 1 uncharged photon model at https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron<redir.aspx?REF=NzWsj_nh28bfY3Me__Xnod5k2zPx4PQfO57xDUljzaVjVMK9xTfTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hY2FkZW1pYS5lZHUvNDQyOTgxMC9UcmFuc2x1bWluYWxfRW5lcmd5X1F1YW50dW1fTW9kZWxzX29mX3RoZV9QaG90b25fYW5kX3RoZV9FbGVjdHJvbg..> , but makes 2 loops instead of one per photon wavelength (like in the electron zitterbewegung model), and has 1/2 the helical radius of the uncharged photon model (R= lambda/4pi instead of lambda/2pi). It also moves internally superluminally at speed c sqrt(2) like the spin 1 photon model, and its helical trajectory, like that of the spin 1 uncharged photon, makes a forward angle of 45 degrees. By the way, both the spin 1 uncharged photon model and spin 1/2 charged photon model have calculated  (by my centripetal acceleration method) inertial mass (hf)/c^2 .

    My more complete spin 1/2 charged photon model has this superluminal spin 1/2 charged photon incorporated into the light-speed spin 1/2 photon trajectory model described in my article  https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength<redir.aspx?REF=4ToyTIG9Ryse7bCVg7aeCG8FCoAdWKhRGJh75AeLPMJjVMK9xTfTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hY2FkZW1pYS5lZHUvMTU2ODY4MzEvRWxlY3Ryb25zX2FyZV9zcGluXzFfMl9jaGFyZ2VkX3Bob3RvbnNfZ2VuZXJhdGluZ190aGVfZGVfQnJvZ2xpZV93YXZlbGVuZ3Ro>   .  I’ve only discussed this more complete spin 1/2 charged photon model privately on an e-mail discussion group “nature of light and particles" so far.

I’ve done preliminary work showing how my spin 1/2 charged photon model might fit into quantum mechanics at  https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation<redir.aspx?REF=EY-rd_6W9C4Rru1EO6jf4ypSP6sqzn5psshpoffJqwljVMK9xTfTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hY2FkZW1pYS5lZHUvMTAyMzUxNjQvVGhlX0NoYXJnZWQtUGhvdG9uX01vZGVsX29mX3RoZV9FbGVjdHJvbl9GaXRzX3RoZV9TY2hyJUMzJUI2ZGluZ2VyX0VxdWF0aW9u>  .  My spin 1/2 charged photon model generates the de Broglie wavelength with its phase velocity c^2/v  by emitting proposed light-speed quantum plane waves (with the same wavelength h/(gamma mc) as the circulating charged photon, as the charged photon circulates along its light speed helical trajectory. These emitted quantum plane waves intersect along the longitudinal axis of the circulating charged photon, generating the de Broglie waves with their wavelength h/(gamma mv) and phase velocity c^2/v.

      Richard

On Feb 14, 2016, at 9:50 AM, Jack Sarfatti <internetscienceeducation at gmail.com<redir.aspx?REF=f1xbtvzdNz157pDU5Fzv6pQrJUX_W_agX2dzOcyLpzZjVMK9xTfTCAFtYWlsdG86aW50ZXJuZXRzY2llbmNlZWR1Y2F0aW9uQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ..>> wrote:

Light is a spin 1 field.

Electrons are a spin 1/2 field.

How do you get spin 1/2 from spin 1?

How do you get quantum theory from your model?


On Feb 12, 2016, at 8:16 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<redir.aspx?REF=cFthQuHp37LLrewzq68fWrR98_08ed7aKxVaMTrXGshjVMK9xTfTCAFtYWlsdG86cmljaGdhdXRoaWVyQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ..>> wrote:

Hi Jack,
 Trying to establish that matter is made of light is for me not a waste of time and is not in my opinion a pseudo-problem, particularly since I think I am making progress in this, as my publications record is starting to show.  If I can also gain some insight into the origin of inertia with this approach, that’s a plus. Mainstream physicists need to expand their minds a bit. Anything that can help make physicists less materialistic-minded and more subtle without sacrificing scientific rigor is I think a good thing.  You have your way of doing this, I have mine.
     Richard

On Feb 12, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti <internetscienceeducation at gmail.com<redir.aspx?REF=f1xbtvzdNz157pDU5Fzv6pQrJUX_W_agX2dzOcyLpzZjVMK9xTfTCAFtYWlsdG86aW50ZXJuZXRzY2llbmNlZWR1Y2F0aW9uQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ..>> wrote:

YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME ON A PSEUDO-PROBLEM THAT NO MAINSTREAM PHYSICIST IS INTERESTED IN.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160217/429c30c6/attachment.htm>