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

Tue Jul 12 13:55:13 PDT 2016

Dear Richard, dear Alex,

we all have an own model for the electron, me as well. I refer to my 
model and I have the following results (now giving more precise 
numbers). And the model is supposed to cover all leptons and all quarks, 
to a certain degree photons as well. Here now the numbers for the electron.

 From the mass mechanism (giving m = h(bar) / (R*c) there follows (with 
a necessary correction for the electric charge)

R = h(bar) / (m*c) * 1/(1-alpha/2pi)    = 3,8660827 * 10^-13 m

Now the /classical /result for the magnetic moment of the electron is

mu = c*e_0 *R/2  = 9,2847844 *10^-24  Amp*m^2

The measured value is mu = 9,2847646 *10^-24  Amp*m^2

The difference of both is a factor of 1,000002 corresponding to 2* 10^-6 
deviation.     This is the magnetic moment of the electron calculated by 
purely /classical means /with use of this particle model. I think that 
this is a strong argument for this radius which follows from this model.

Regarding the zitterbewegung, Schrödinger has evaluated the Dirac 
function with the result that this oscillation has a /speed /of c; he 
has in my understanding not made any statements about the frequency. 
According to my text book about the Dirac function, this frequency is 
quite vague. And this frequency was never measured. In contrast to the 
magnetic moment of my result above.

A frequency which is well known and verified is the relation between 
frequency and energy: E = h*f . And this relation follows also very 
straight from my model. So, I think that this is the better argument. - 
And I do not need this funny rule of a circuit of 720 degrees.

Albrecht

Am 10.07.2016 um 05:51 schrieb Burinskii A.Ya.:
> Albrect,
>
>
>
> Richard is right. Two loops of photon means that one half (!) of the Compton length lies on 360 degree.
>
> One more argument from Kerr geometry, where radius  J=ma  (my model).  Setting  J= hbar /2,  gives
>
> radius a = hbar/2m.
>
>
>
> Alex
>
> ________________________________
> От: Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
> Отправлено: 9 июля 2016 г. 23:59
> Кому:phys at a-giese.de; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Тема: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities
>
> Albrecht,
>    A better estimate of the size of the electron from Dirac’s and Schrodinger's work is that its radius is hbar/2mc = 1.93 x 10^-13 m (not your value hbar/mc of 3.86 x 10^-13 m) . This corresponds better to Schroedinger’s size estimate of “about 4 x 10-13” since the electron “size" most likely refers to its diameter not its radius. Furthermore, the radius hbar/2mc comes out of Hestenes’ geometric algebra analysis of the Dirac equation. It is also consistent with the 720 degree symmetry of a Dirac spinor. And it generates the election’s spin hbar/2 easily when the radius hbar/2mc is multiplied by the circulating photon model’s momentum mc  :    S= r x p = hbar/2mc x mc  = hbar/2 for a resting electron, without having to make up a complicated explanation about the missing factor of 1/2 that you get from using the radius hbar/mc to calculate the electron’s spin. Furthermore, the hbar/2mc radius generates the Dirac equation electron’s zitterbewegung frequency Fzitt=2mc^2/h which the radius hbar/mc does not.
>        Richard
>
>
> On Jul 8, 2016, at 12:06 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
> Grahame,
>
> regarding the radius of the electron, I think that it is well defined.
>
> Schrödinger evaluated "the size" of the electron in his famous paper of 1930 by QM means, and his result was "about 4 * 10^-13 m". From my model there follows a more precise value which is R = 3.86 * 10^-13 m.
> What about the spin? If the mass of a particle is m = h(bar)/(R*c)  (this follows from my model) then you can reorder it: m*R*c = h(bar). This is the classical definition of the angular momentum. The result is constant for a lepton and for a quark independent of the individual particle, but it has a factor of 1/2 missing. The cause is that the mass follows here from a special mechanism which is not reflected by the classical understanding of a  mass which is distributed within the particle.
>
> If interested please look at my site "Origin of Mass". (www.ag-physics.org<http://www.ag-physics.org/>  )
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 08.07.2016 um 11:45 schrieb John Williamson:
> 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<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto: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 atrichgauthier 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 atphys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>     Virenfrei.www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier 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 atphys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160712/a5a14f2e/attachment.htm>