[General] HA: HA: double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

[Burinskii A.Ya.]

Dear John and all,

These two paper are in open access of the Journal JETP,   and I am sending them in attachment. In fact, the used supersymmetric scheme of phase transition  resolves the problem of conflict between quantum and gravity.

Alex

________________________________________
От: John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
Отправлено: 10 июля 2016 г. 6:52
Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Копия: Phil Butler; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; Mark,        Martin van der
Тема: Re: [General] HA:  double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Dear Alex,

That is interesting. I have gone the other way. I was very interested in SUSY in the early eighties. I gave that strand up then for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there was the search for supersymmetric particles (in which I was involved)- with no sign of them in a host of really superb experiments carried out by some really superb physicists.

More importantly, one can, as a theorist, put in complexity in very many ways and play with it. Many experimentalists do not get this. The theories just get too hard for most folk to understand them at all. Physics gets too hard for physicists! Sticking in an extra group here or there or adding some un-observed dimensionality is an easy way to insert some feature observed in experiment and also an easy way to blind most with incomprehensible science.. The problem is that most of the theories doing this quickly become incalculable. Literally. They become non-perturbative . Translation for the un-initiated - nonperturbative means that you cannot calculate anything reliable a-priori with them.  Nearly always, if you go to a new regime, they are way off the mark. On the other hand the more complex of them (QCD for example) can fit pretty much anything a-postiori. There are dozens of free parameters to play with – and one can always introduce a few more if one feels the need to do so. This is not just a feature of pretty much all string theories, but also of the mainstream theory in the "standard model" quantum chromodynamics. These theories are completely useless in an engineering sense.

Worse, I think they stop real science dead because they are not subject to the scientific method. They are far too floppy. One cannot disprove them by experiment. I think they are worse than a waste of time. I think they actively stop science progressing. People here are worried about relativity – fine, but at least it is analytic and calculable. Whatever it is ultimately replaced with had better parallel pretty much everything it does – or the new theory will be in conflict with a lot of experiment. Not so for QCD and the strings!

I know you have fixed many of the problems in your work  (nice!) by using as a base hard experimental quantities, such as the spin – and look forwards to looking at some of this further. I’m wondering why this work did not progress farther. What were the objections that folk came up with? It looks good to me. As I said before I think your methods and some of ours (especially Martin’s) are converging.

I’m suspicious of “bag” models in general (what is the bag?) but very willing to be convinced if this can be put in analytically and with a basis that can be tested in experiment.

For myself, I prefer to try to work by not putting in too many extra things not observed in reality (and SUSY is for me a BIG thing to be not observed yet). I find the specific hypercomplexity I’m using to be more grounded – in that it is just the mathematical properties of space and time, as they are observed to be that I am trying to parallel. Hypercomplex indeed – but the simple properties of ordinary rotations,. Quaternions extended to include time. That hypercomplexity which is observed. Hypercomplex indeed, but analytical.

Eventually, of course, one can make anything up and play with it but there remains one and only one way to do it exactly right. Only one theory (if any!) can precisely parallel that which is observed in nature in every respect.  Proof- imagine there exist two theories which precisely parallel nature in every respect. Either they can be put in a one to one correspondence with true nature – in which case they are anyway the same. Alternatively the two theories may differ in some respect (observed in nature) – in which case that one disagreeing with nature, as observed, may be discarded, leaving only one.

Not there yet – but the (centuries long!) journey is fun!

Comments preceded by *

Regards, John.

________________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Burinskii A.Ya. [bur at ibrae.ac.ru]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 1:01 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: [General] HA:  double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Dear John,



I tried to use hypercomplexity, but obtained that there is a very good analogue in the field model of supersymmetry, contrary to the very popular but too naive idea on superparticles.

*Interesting: but if the analogy is precise this end up being the same thing perhaps?

Similar, I believe in the Higgs field model, but not in the  Higgs particle!

*Agreed on the particle. I think we can do better on the field as we need to derive its origin and fix it in experiment.

The known Mexican hat potential describes superconducting vacuum, but it does not allow to make particle (soliton) consistent with gravity.

*I'm not surprised. This is another reason to think the model is too simple.

For consistency with Kerr gravity,  I was need to use the standard supersymmetric Higgs field model (Wess and Bagger book) with three complex fields and especially chosen superpotential (two JETP papers in 2015).
This may work – but it seems to me a lot to put in. Martin and I are working on something more like a root-potential that is not put in but arises from the nature of division.

It yields the core of bag (=soliton)  done of a superconducting state of vacuum, which automatically gives

quantum angular momentum and disk-like shape of the bag. The photon is sitting on the border of bag in a string-like form.

*Interesting indeed, but there may be an equivalent way to do this. I would like to see the papers. You may have done this already (sorry – been busy) – but could you please send me them or refer me to them.  I can’t read Russian (only English, French, Dutch or German) so if there is not a translation a pointer to the core maths would be appreciated! J.



Alex





________________________________
От: John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
Отправлено: 8 июля 2016 г. 12:45
Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Копия: Anthony Booth; Mark, Martin van der
Тема: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Yep it is,indeed not so simple.

Grahame, you say ...

Angular momentum is given by linear tangential momentum multiplied by radius - so angular momentum of the electron is mcR.  Since mc is constant, R must also be constant if angular momentum is invariant (which I believe we agree it is)

Hmm, I kind of do and do not agree. This kind of thing is (perhaps) part of the story, but anyway only a part. Such a thing is, indeed A component of angular momentum, but it is wholly inadequate to describe quantum spin. It is the only component for simple models where a something goes round and round in circles in ordinary space, even so it immediately begs the question "what is R?" and then the further question "what is m?" let alone the deeper questions - why that R and why that m? and what is it orbiting about and what is orbiting?

Going to "what is R?. The R needs to be, in my view, at least “complex”. I recently read your 1973 article Alex. Very beautiful. 1973! Had we been aware of it at the time I’m sure Martin and I would have referenced it as a possible confinement scenario. There you recognize, correctly, the huge angular momentum density and use that as an input. I think the subsequent double covering problems  and the sign change similar to those encountered by other folk in trying to model stuff using the half-integer Legendre polynomials, are best treated by going more complex than complex, and using a proper non-commutative algebra. Tricky, I know, but nature, (especially 3D rotations) IS non-commutative.

Coming back to angular momentum and the underlying nature of spin. This IS hard. No simple way round it. Properly, the momentum is itself contains a division of space by time (the velocity). It is properly a bi-vector. Further, the orbital angular momentum (what Grahame is talking about), contains a multiplication of this by a perpendicular vector (R ). That is, properly, a tri-vector (the dual of a vector).  Remember, torque and energy have the same SI units (force times distance), but are quite different (energy is a scalar, torque is a bi-vector). Same kind of thing needed here in your thinking and visualisation (but worse). You can think of the bi-vector ness (of the trivector) either in your momentum or in your “radius” –either way hypercomplex. Also – to go further you need to go to differential forms – not just see this as just some mass m orbiting on some (massless) stick of fixed length R! Sorry Grahame, but this is what your model of angular momentum looks like to me. Orbiting around what? What is orbiting and what is it orbiting around?

This all sounds pretty horrible, but it is not as bad as you think. The Maxwell equations already contain much of this complexity, and describe light well. One of the Maxwell equations IS the (partial at least) tri-vector equation for the electromagnetic fluid. Analysing this properly, with the right extensions, does give an intrinsic angular momentum density which can be integrated. I’m not very good at this kind of thing, but that is just the kind of thing I’m trying to do.

My new photon wavefunction does, at least do this. As the energy varies the curvature varies inversely to maintain the angular momentum at hbar to arbitrary energies. Sticking this into our electron model then gives a half-integral spin at arbitrary energies (since it is a double-loop and transforms, further, as a looping photon).

Anyway gotta go .. still dealing with fallout from the exams …

Regards, John.


________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 6:13 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Hello Grahame,

    Unfortunately the situation is not so simple. Neither of our published electron models includes a specific photon model with its own spin, where this photon model moves along the helical trajectory described in our models. If that photon moving along the helical trajectory has a spin that is is independent of the energy of the photon (which is the nature of photons) then as the photon's trajectory in the your double-loop constant helical radius electron model gets more and more straight with increasing electron speed, then the spin of this circulating photon adds more and more to the spin 1/2 of your electron model produced by its circling transverse component of momentum mc at constant radius R. The result is that a circulating spin 1 photon along your constant radius R helical trajectory would give your electron model a total spin of one and a half units of spin hbar at highly relativistic velocities. A circulating spin 1/2 photon traveling along your constant radius R trajectory would give your electron model a total spin of  1/2 + 1/2 = 1 unit of hbar of spin at highly relativistic velocities. It is only if the radius R of the photon’s helical trajectory decreases with increasing velocity to become insignificant (compared to R in a resting electron) at relativistic velocities that the spin of the electron model at relativistic velocities will equal only the spin of the photon composing the electron model. Ideally the helically circulating photon model of the electron will have longitudinal spin component 1/2 hbar at all velocities of the electron model from very slow velocities to very highly relativistic velocities.

    I have an unpublished internally superluminal (v=c sqrt(2) ) helically circulating spin-1/2 photon model whose spin remains 1/2 at all energies, which may be suitable for modeling the electron. I described this photon model in this email list in the past. The radius of my published spin-1/2 charged-photon electron model’s photon trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 with increasing electron velocity, so this does not produce the complication described above when the helical radius of the photon’s trajectory is a constant R at all electron velocities.

          Richard

On Jul 7, 2016, at 1:00 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com<mailto:grahame at starweave.com>> wrote:

Thanks Richard,

That's precisely what I've been trying to say, without in any way resting on any generally-accepted results that might be regarded as consequences of SR (and so open to question).

If we agree that the transverse momentum component of the electron is a direct consequence of the rotational component of its formative photon (as I hope we do!) then that rotational component is acting at radius R of the electron at that time from its centre.  Angular momentum is given by linear tangential momentum multiplied by radius - so angular momentum of the electron is mcR.  Since mc is constant, R must also be constant if angular momentum is invariant (which I believe we agree it is).

Just one further point: Richard, you refer to m as the electron's invariant mass.  If we regard mass as that quality of an object that resists acceleration (and so is proportional to the instantaneous force required to induce an instantaneous acceleration), then my research indicates that the mass is not invariant - though it will appear so from measurements taken within the electron's moving frame.  My analysis shows that objective mass varies with speed and the relationship E = mc^2 is applicable only for an objectively static object/particle.  The m referred to above, as I see it, is the objective rest-mass of the electron (i.e. its mass when objectively static), which corresponds to the energy required to maintain the formative structure of the electron (as opposed to that required to maintain its linear motion).  This is of course constant.

Best regards,
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Gauthier<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Chip and Grahame,
   Lets be specific to the electron to avoid unnecessary vagueness. The moving electron (composed of a circulating photon) has a constant transverse internal momentum component mc and a longitudinal external momentum component p=gamma mv. These two momenta add vectorially (by the Pythagorean theorem) to give  P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2  where P=E/c is the momentum P=gamma mc of the helically circulating photon of energy E = gamma mc^2 that is the total energy of the linearly moving electron, modeled by the helically moving photon. This relationship is equivalent to the relativistic energy-momentum equation for a moving electron: E^2 = (pc)^2 + m^2 c^4 which, substituting E=Pc,  gives  (Pc)^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2) c^2 .. Dividing by c^2 gives P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2 as given above. So as the electron speeds up, the transverse momentum component mc of the electron’s total (internal plus external) momentum P remains constant even for a highly relativistic electron. The electron’s constant transverse internal momentum component mc corresponds to (and leads to a derivation of) the electron’s invariant mass m.
    Richard

On Jul 6, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com<mailto:grahame at starweave.com>> wrote:

Yes Chip,

Certainly the momentum of the confined wave increases - but that increased momentum should not ALL be reckoned as ANGULAR momentum of the electron.

We know that a component of the momentum of that photon is linear - it's the linear momentum of the electron in motion.  There is another component of that photon that's orthogonal to that, i.e. in the direction of the cyclic motion of the photon.  As the linear velocity of the electron increases, the linear component of the photon momentum increases - however the orthogonal, cyclic, component of that photon momentum does NOT increase, since the 'pitch angle' of the helical motion of that photon increases with linear electron velocity, and so also with photon frequency, so as to precisely cancel out the effect of that increased frequency in the resolved-component cyclic direction.

The angular momentum of the electron, dictated by the angular momentum contribution of the photon, does NOT depend on the FULL momentum of the photon - it ONLY depends on that component of the photon that acts cyclically, i.e. the component that's orthogonal to the linear motion of the photon.  That component remains constant (as long as the radius of the photon cycle remains constant).

For example, if an electron is travelling with linear speed 0.6c then its formative photon is travelling in a helical path which, if we were to flatten it out (as in relativistic energy-momentum relation) we'd find that formative photon having a linear motion component of 0.6c and cyclic speed component of 0.8c.  This means that the ANGULAR momentum imparted by the photon will only be 0.8 of that which it would give if it were travelling fully cyclically at speed c (as for a static particle).  Since the frequency of the photon will be increased by a gamma factor of 1/0.8 for such motion, the decreased (0.8) contribution of momentum for increased (1/0.8) frequency will be exactly what it was for the static particle.

I hope that helps make things clearer.

Best regards,
Grahame

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto: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>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/john.williamson%40glasgow.ac.uk?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 bur at ibrae.ac.ru
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/bur%40ibrae.ac.ru?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Published ZhETP.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 847789 bytes
Desc: Published ZhETP.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160710/52c83802/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Published JETP Rus Vol. 148 (11) 937 (2015).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 599804 bytes
Desc: Published JETP Rus Vol. 148 (11) 937 (2015).pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160710/52c83802/attachment-0001.pdf>