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

Andrew Meulenberg mules333 at gmail.com
Sun Feb 21 01:04:38 PST 2016


Dear John W,

Response to your comments (highlighted) below:

I doubt that a detailed theory of the dynamics of pair annihilation would
be accepted by any major publication unless it were couched entirely in the
QM framework. Three years ago, it took AJP only 9 minutes (from electronic
acknowledgement of receipt of my submission to a 1-page e-mail reply) to
reject my paper on the topic. I doubt that the editor got past my abstract
(below)

*Mass and the Coulomb potential in positronium*©
 A. Meulenberg,a) K P Sinha,b) W.R. Hudgins,c) and R. F. Penland, Jr.d)

*Abstract*
When mass is defined as a function of electrostatic potential energy and
the unit charge is defined as a strong resonance of the electro-magnetic
field, then the creation and annihilation of electron-positron pairs may be
viewed as continuous relativistic processes rather than as ‘mystical’
quantum transitions between different energy states. Charge and rest mass
can no longer be considered as relativistic ‘invariants’. Rest mass must be
redefined to be determined in a potential-free environment. The
relativistic ‘effective’ mass of an electron may not increase with velocity
in the expected manner when close to a positron. The fundamental assumption
of this paper is that mass, including rest mass, is a measure of this
potential energy, i.e., a change in Coulomb potential results in the change
in mass of the causative charged particle. In the case of positronium, all
of the mass is proposed to be from the Coulomb interaction.

Perhaps I should title it differently and rewrite the abstract, because the
paper details how the relativistic mass of the collapsing leptons becomes
the nascent EM radiation that becomes the resulting photons. The energy
source of the photons must be the Coulomb potential (mass and charge) of
the lepton pair. The transition is continuous, depends only on classical
special relativity, and requires only high school math (therefore the
(mis-)choice of journal).

I have been too busy to submit it elsewhere. However, K. P. Sinha and I are
writing a prequel, in more 'acceptable' contemporary-physics language with
no details of the transition that could be controversial: "Symmetry
breaking in the photon to electron-positron transition." One of the
symmetries being broken is that of the boson. The others are of charge and
mass. We'll also try a different journal. Any suggestions?

Andrew
______________________________

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:46 PM, 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.
>
>
>
> 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
> <http://redir.aspx?REF=je_uE4u5X6xqKSdDbgjsuv_foPxdLlo0Hul33aLhv6hjVMK9xTfTCAFtYWlsdG86amd3QGVsZWMuZ2xhLmFjLnVr> )
>  “Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?” at
> http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/electron.pdf
> <http://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
> <http://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
> <http://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
> <http://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
> <http://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
> <http://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
> <http://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
> <http://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
> <http://redir.aspx?REF=f1xbtvzdNz157pDU5Fzv6pQrJUX_W_agX2dzOcyLpzZjVMK9xTfTCAFtYWlsdG86aW50ZXJuZXRzY2llbmNlZWR1Y2F0aW9uQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ..>>
> wrote:
>
> YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME ON A PSEUDO-PROBLEM THAT NO MAINSTREAM PHYSICIST
> IS INTERESTED IN.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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/20160221/2b8faf3a/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list