[General] (no subject)

Sat Jan 30 06:18:55 PST 2016

Dear John D,

comments interleaved:

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:59 PM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
wrote:

> Andrew:
>
>
>
> I think it’s a mistake to think in terms of an E field. The radial lines
> you see around a charged particle aren’t really field lines, they’re lines
> of force:
>

What is the difference? Force is the gradient of a potential and field
lines are normal to the equipotential lines.

>
>
>
>
> The arrowheads don’t “work” because two electrons repel, two positrons
> repel, and an electron and a positron attract. The solution is to
> appreciate that *it takes two to tango*.  This linear “electric” force
> results when you set two charged particles down next to one another. And it
> is not magic. The electron and the positron move because each is a
> dynamical spinor. They move towards one another if you set them down with
> no initial motion. And if you throw one past the other, they move radially
> too.
>

Arrowheads from 2 electrons will oppose. Opposing forces repel. Charges w/o
spin do the same w/o being spinors.

> In positronium they typically move towards one another  and around one
> another in a death-dance, depicted like this:
>
>
>
>
>
> But a better depiction would be something like this:
>
>
>
>
>
> IMHO you should think of the motion as vertical: counter-rotating vortices
> attract, co-rotating vortices repel. And I would urge you to think of the
> Falaco soliton as something like *half an electron *rather than something
> like an electron and a positron. The Falaco soliton is something like the
> bottom half of a smoke ring, and the electron is something like a whole
> smoke ring but with a “steering wheel” rotation as well. As for time, IMHO
> you should think of time as being defined by motion rather than the other
> way round. Have a read of Time Explained
> <http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/time-explained-t3.html>.  And
> please accept my apologies for trampling on your thoughts.
>

Vortices about any spatial axis can be inverted to reverse spin. Only a
spin axis along the time axis is invariant. However, your picture above is
the same as mine for spin interactions with that assumption.

A 1/2 electron as a soliton does not compute. The e-pos pair does. My
trampled thoughts will recover.

Best regards,

Andrew

>
>
> Regards
>
> JohnD
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=
> btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Sent:* 28 January 2016 10:39
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] (no subject)
>
>
>
> Dear John D,
>
>
>
> For years, I thought along the same lines as you (and most of the group).
> However, I finally realized that there was a problem. I had assumed that
> the *E*-field concentration in the center of the coiled photon (with
> field lines always pointing in or out) reached a critical density and
> forced/distorted space into a massive region that would then accompany the
> charged creature of the twisted photon.
>
>
>
> Then three things forced me to change my mind (at least in part).
>
>    1. *E*-fields are the gradient of a potential. They are a result of a
>    difference in potential and, unlike magnetic field lines that are
>    continuous thru the magnet, *E*-field lines must terminate. They don't
>    create the potential unless they are associated with something with inertia
>    (to create a resonant circuit). Therefore, they cannot create the
>    permanent, high, energy density of the electron.
>    2. for a lepton to have spin in any direction (in 3-D), it must have a
>    spin axis along a 4th dimension (otherwise relativity plays hob with the
>    supposedly constant value of spin).
>    3. leptons (electrons and positrons in our case) are always created in
>    pairs
>
> Thus, I concluded that the spin axis must be along time and this is a
> vortex into time. There must be a gradient for the field lines to follow;
> therefore an electron and positron must be created at the same time and
> must be connected along the time axis (just as the falaco soliton has two
> vortices connected under water). I believe that this is the definition of a
> wormhole.
>
>
>
> I haven't worked out the details yet, but there must be a time (or
> polarity) reversal between the lepton event horizons so that the field
> lines can be continuous both in the wormhole and outside in 3-space. While
> I like the 'doughnut', I assume that it is extended into a 'tube' with an
> electron represented by one end and a positron by the other.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:00 PM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
> wrote:
>
> Andrew:
>
>
>
> What I have in mind is something like your latter description. Start with
> one sinusoidal wave moving back and forth between two gedanken mirrors.
> Then move the mirrors closer and closer together until they’re half a
> wavelength apart. Then the positive field variation is countered by the
> negative field variation, and there’s no field variation any more. It looks
> like there’s no wave there either. But when you kick away one of the
> mirrors, the sine wave departs at c from a standing start. Because it was
> *always* there. After that, confine the wave such that it goes round and
> round in a mirror box, as per http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478. After that
> replace the box with a wave moving through itself in a twisting turning
> path forever displacing its own path into a closed path. Like this:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> …but “pump up the inner tube” so it looks more spherical. The black line
> marks out one wavelength, and a 720 degree rotation. It’s a stable vortex,
> but there’s no wormhole.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> JohnD
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=
> btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Sent:* 27 January 2016 10:58
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] (no subject)
>
>
>
> John D,
>
> I like most of the things you've said recently. However, I think that you
> need to reexamine this last (or describe it more clearly) "
>
> Take a field variation and wrap it round a spin-½ path, and what you then
> have is a standing field."  A standing wave results from colliding waves
> (2 waves moving in opposite directions). Are you describing waves or only
> the field components?
>
>
>
> If you are describing waves, then with following a 1 wavelength
> circumference the result is a 'resonant' wave moving at the velocity of
> light in the local medium. This is observable as the whispering gallery
> mode in microspheres.
>
> If you are describing fields, then, with a 1/2 wavelength circumference
> and 180 degree rotation of the wave's polarization vector, the result is a
> 'resonant' wave moving at the velocity of light in the local medium, but
> with the same field pointing out (or in) all of the time. If that were all,
> then, because of the modulated field intensity, the resulting E-field would
> be directional (anisotropic). However, field concentrations are an energy
> (mass?) concentration that alters the local distortion of space (refractive
> index). The redistribution of the resultant, to lower the total energy by
> spreading the field intensity uniformly in space, gives the isotropic field
> of an electron at rest. The result is a 3-D vortex in 4-space that gives
> stability and spin in all 3-space directions (not just along the selected
> axis). The vortex formed in the creation of an electron/positron pair
> connects the leptons by a sub-micro-wormhole that does not appear in our
> measurements of field. The stable vortex is matter. The worm-hole (vortex)
> can be infinitely extended or 'diluted' in 3-space; however, I believe that
> it is the source of stable matter.
>
> It is the relativistic effects on the bound photon (the electron, when in
> motion) that provides distortion of the field ('flattening' of the electron
> E-fields in the direction of motion) and consequent raising of the total
> energy to increase the effective mass of the electron and is displayed as
> inertia. Since there are no losses in space (within the concept of
> conservative system), once the acceleration stops, the distortion at
> velocity v remains, until another force changes it back or further.
>
> Thus, acceleration always changes mass as well as velocity. The change is
> not observable for non-relativistic velocities. Mass is equal to the force
> required to change the velocity of an object (m = F/a). Force is the
> gradient of the potential (F = -dV/dr) and so it can convert potential
> energy into kinetic energy (velocity). But force also gives the change in
> momentum (F = dp/dt = vdm/dt + mdv/dt). Normally, dm/dt is too small to
> measure and can be ignored. The acceleration, dv/dt, is the observable
> feature. However, the bigger the mass (for a given acceleration) the bigger
> the momentum or inertia. All of this depends on the change in 'shape' of
> the electrons (and positrons, the relativistic constituents of quarks) in
> matter under acceleration.
>
> Andrew
>
> ________________________________________
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:34 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
> wrote:
>
> Wolf:
>
>
>
> Take a field variation and wrap it round a spin-½ path, and what you then
> have is a standing field. A charged particle. It doesn’t blow apart because
> light is displacement current, and displacement current does what it says
> on the can. Light displaces its own path into a closed path. IMHO pair
> production and the wave nature of matter should have made all this common
> knowledge a long time ago. In atomic orbitals electrons exist as standing
> waves <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties>.
> Kick an electron out of an orbital, and it still exists as a standing wave.
> Standing wave, standing field.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> JohnD
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160130/42106401/attachment.htm>