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

Wed Feb 17 10:40:55 PST 2016

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:16 AM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>  
> 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.

Not true. Feynman’s method computes these cross-sections very accurately. Also that is not what I meant at all. Gautheir claims that the spin 1/2 fermions are trapped spin 1 in sense of Bohm’s hidden variables. He needs a classical model - he is making classical models remember - more precisely semi-classical like Bohr 1913. Of course there is supersymmetry, but that does not fit into his picture.
>  
> 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.

Agreed

However, you are misinformed about modern state of Bohm’s pilot wave picture. Sheldon Goldstein https://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/ has made much progress and so has Rod Sutherland, e.g.

"CAUSALLY SYMMETRIC BOHM MODEL
Roderick I. Sutherland
Centre for Time
University of Sydney
NSW 2006 Australia
§1 Introduction
The aim of this paper is to construct a version of Bohm’s model that also includes the
existence of backwards-in-time influences in addition to the usual forwards causation.
The motivation for this extension is to remove the need in the existing model for a
preferred reference frame. As is well known, Bohm’s explanation for the nonlocality of
Bell’s theorem necessarily involves instantaneous changes being produced at space-like
separations, in conflict with the “spirit” of special relativity even though these changes
are not directly observable. While this mechanism is quite adequate from a purely
empirical perspective, the overwhelming experimental success of special relativity
(together with the theory’s natural attractiveness), makes one reluctant to abandon it even
at a “hidden” level. There are, of course, trade-offs to be made in formulating an
alternative model and it is ultimately a matter of taste as to which is preferred. However,
constructing an explicit example of a causally symmetric formalism allows the pros and
cons of each version to be compared and highlights the consequences of imposing such
symmetry1. In particular, in addition to providing a natural explanation for Bell
nonlocality, the new model allows us to define and work with a mathematical description
in 3-dimensional space, rather than configuration space, even in the correlated manyparticle
case.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sec. 2, the basic causally symmetric scheme is
introduced in terms of initial and final boundary conditions. Sec. 3 then highlights the
ways in which the corresponding initial and final wavefunctions will propagate. The
basic equations of the alternative model are deduced in Sec. 4 in close analogy to the
formalism of the standard Bohm model. Sec. 5 then points out how the notion of
retrocausality has been given an explicit mathematical form and Sec. 6 checks some
elementary matters of consistency. The discussion in Sec. 7 indicates how backwards-intime
effects provide a meaning for the notion of negative probability. Sec. 8 then explains
the way in which an objection to an earlier and related model of de Broglie is now
overcome. After dealing with some technical details in Sec. 9, the analysis in Sec. 10
shows how the model explains Bell’s nonlocality in a way that is Lorentz invariant, as
well as being local from a 4-dimensional point of view. The generalization of the
formalism to n particles is given in Sec. 11, followed by an outline in Sec. 12 of ways in
which the model has inherently weaker predictive power. A relativistic version is
formulated in Sec. 13 for the single-particle Dirac case. Finally, conclusions are
presented in Sec. 14.
1 This notion of causal symmetry needs to be distinguished from the more usual concept of time symmetry.
Most mathematical formalisms in physics, including the Bohm mode

 Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics – Entangled Many-Particle Case 
Roderick I. Sutherland 
Centre for Time, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia 
A Lagrangian formulation is constructed for particle interpretations of quantum mechanics, a well-known example of such an interpretation being the Bohm model. The advantages of such a description are that the equations for particle motion, field evolution and conservation laws can all be deduced from a single Lagrangian density expression. The formalism presented is Lorentz invariant. This paper follows on from a previous one which was limited to the single-particle case. The present paper treats the more general case of many particles in an entangled state. It is found that describing more than one particle while maintaining a relativistic description requires the introduction of final boundary conditions as well as initial, thereby entailing retrocausality. 
1. Introduction 
This paper focuses on interpretations of QM in which the underlying reality is taken to consist of particles have definite trajectories at all times1. It then enriches the associated formalism of such interpretations by providing a Lagrangian description of the unfolding events. The convenience and utility of a Lagrangian formulation is well-known from classical mechanics. The particle equation of motion, the field equation, the conserved current, action-reaction, the energy-momentum tensor, , etc., are all easily derivable in a self-consistent way from a single expression. These advantages continue in the present context. Since a Lagrangian description is available in all other areas of physics and continues to be useful in modern domains such as quantum field theory and the standard model, it is appropriate to expect such a description to be relevant and applicable here as well2. In addition to the advantages already listed, the Lagrangian approach pursued here to describe particle trajectories also entails the natural introduction of an accompanying field to influence the particle’s motion away from classical mechanics and reproduce the correct quantum predictions. In so doing, it is in fact providing a physical explanation for why quantum phenomena exist at all – the particle is seen to be the source of a field which alters the particle’s trajectory via self-interaction." 

> 

> 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.

I disagree. 
>  
> 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. 

Basil Hiley and Maurice de Gossson are also doing that. However, it is way too abstract and not visualizable unlike Bohm’s early pilot wave whose physical content is hardly fully explored.
>  
> 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.

I am aware that there are topological semi-classical models of supersymmetry. You model if it works would be a Bohm be-able that must be supplemented by the quantum information pilot field.
>  
> 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 <x-msg://266/redir.aspx?REF=je_uE4u5X6xqKSdDbgjsuv_foPxdLlo0Hul33aLhv6hjVMK9xTfTCAFtYWlsdG86amd3QGVsZWMuZ2xhLmFjLnVr> )  “Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?” at  http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/electron.pdf <x-msg://266/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 <x-msg://266/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 <x-msg://266/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 athttps://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron <x-msg://266/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 <x-msg://266/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 <x-msg://266/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 <x-msg://266/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 <x-msg://266/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 <x-msg://266/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/20160217/1e609c5c/attachment.htm>