[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

[Vivian Robinson]

Dear All,

I have been following the discussions concerning the rotating photon model of an electron, also known by other descriptions. General consensus (which doesn't necessarily make it correct), is that an electron at rest is a photon of energy ≈ 0.511 MeV that makes two revolutions within its wavelength. (Others suggest one revolution). In my calculations I showed the equivalence of E = mc^2, with energy being the photon travelling in a straight line and m being the same photon travelling in a circle of radius r = lambda/4π, i.e. two revolutions per wavelength. This give angular momentum I.omega = hbar/2. The double loop means that the electric and magnetic fields overlap, reinforcing each other in circularly polarised photons. 

It is suggested there are two reasons for a photon to travel in the circular orbit. John W and Martin vdM suggest a mathematical derivation. My paper suggests the continual emission and absorption of virtual or field photons will cause the rotating photon to travel its trajectory. QED calculations suggest the photon exchange is the mechanism of charge interaction. I suggest the rotating photon model is the origin of electric charge. I have not calculated the value of unit charge "e". 

Richard G pointed out an error in my calculations of the magnetic moment equals electric charge times radius. I now explain the Bohr magneton by including a contribution from the photon's B field. 

As the photon moves, its circular trajectory becomes a two looped spiral. The constancy of the speed of light c and angular momentum half hbar mean that its movement automatically introduces the relativistic corrections into its motion. As the electron's energy increases, its mass increases while its angular momentum remains the same. This requires the rotating photon's radius to decrease. The constancy of the speed of light means that the photon's rotation must slow down. This is the origin of time dilation with velocity. The rotating photon must also adopt a linear forward motion component. This means the rotating photon does not have to make as many rotations to travel the distance measured by an observer at rest. This is the origin of the length contraction. In those calculations, everything is governed by the special relativity correction gamma. The rotating photon model is the origins of the special relativity correction term gamma. It is not subject to it. 

That model suggests that the mass of an electron will increase with its velocity, its electric charge remains the same and its magnetic moment decreases. IMHO, any other physical model for the origin of electric charge as a property of the electron would require its electric charge and magnetic moment to increase with its mass. 

In my paper I indicate a number of properties that this model matches with experimentally measured properties of the electron. I also indicate a few properties that are not yet known (or known but not recognised). I am quite prepared to let my model rise or fall based upon the accuracy or otherwise of those predictions. In observing the correspondence I see it is primarily about people feeling it necessary to point out the advantages of their model over those of other models. What I don't see is people supporting their model by experimental observation. How many times must people be told that experiment is reality. If you want others to agree with your model, show how it matches observation and preferably make predictions that can be tested experimentally. 

As far as I am concerned I have extended it to the proton, neutron and neutrino as stable particles,as well as muons, pions and lots of other unstable subatomic particles. One of these days I must get some more time to publish them. 

 Please! If you want people to believe your results match it with experiment and preferably make predictions. If you want to disagree with someone's work use experimental evidence. Mathematics is fine and necessary. But it must support physical effects, not replace them. People can and do use mathematics to prove whatever they want. Generally it is so complicated that "mere mortals" can't understand it. QCD is the best example of that. without ever having isolated a single quark or gluon they have derived a complex set of mathematics that they must change every time a new observations is not as predicted. We live in a universe with three space dimensions and time. 

IMHO, modern experimentalists are pretty good. If they haven't detected isolated quarks and gluons now, the best explanation is that they don't exist. Despite all their complexity they (the "experts") can't get unity between relativity and quantum mechanics. I suggest that this model of the electron will explain its properties in atoms where it is nearly at rest as well as its special relativistic behaviour.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson

On 14/07/2016, at 8:06 AM, davidmathes8 at yahoo.com wrote:

> Richard
> 
> In the quest for the single model, one has to consider the possibility that more than one is right. 
> 
> Clearly, with present peer-reviewed articles all six do not seem compatible. However, three of them might fit together into a cohesive model. While I'm still looking at Grahame's and John D. I've been following Vivian's, but not sure where to fit this model just yet.
> 
> There are at least two general approaches. For me, one is dimensional and the other is topological state. 
> 
> Now, one could simply sort theories by dimension. Chip has a 2D model, Richard a 3D model and Williamson/van der Martin have a 4D model. So one obvious direction is to determine if these models can be nested with the 2D inside the 3D inside the 4D.
> 
> Topologically, the 2D model appears as if it's a mapping of the 3D model but is this model compatible only with a 3D spindle torus, or is it possible to have some variation which fits a 3D ring torus?
> 
> As a side note, I've often wondered whether the spindle is part of the source of mass for the electron. Of course, this requires one to use a lowered permittivity in between the spindle and shell leaving a volume of condensed matter in the spindle. Speculatively, the spindle might be used to explain inertia and perhaps even gravity.
> 
> The 4D model will simple tie up one's brain in knots, Hopf to be specific. However, one could view this theory as the overarching theory with other 3D and 2D models able to fit within this theory.
> 
> The 2D theory is of interest since last year Weyl particles were observed in a 2D layer. However, a Weyl particle is charge without mass unlike Dirac particle which has charged mass. 
> 
> In between the Dirac and Weyl particles are the Majorna fermions which makes sense if one uses a horn torus since a Majorna fermion is it's own antiparticle. Gauthier's Spin 1 electron would seem to be a Majorna fermion.
> 
> One is entitled to defend their model. However, nature has the final vote and takes on all-comers. Whether all the proposed models of the electron are simply part of a nested solution set...and that might include spacetime itself which is essentially a zero-D model...still does not explain everything known, predicted and especially knowable unknowns.
> 
> Best
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> To: "phys at a-giese.de" <phys at a-giese.de>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 8:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [General] HA: double photon cycle,	subjective v objective realities
> 
> Hello Grahame, John and others,
> 
>     I’m thinking that with such concentrated attention on double-looping photon models of an electron that a breakthrough may be imminent. Since all our (John W, Chip, Graham, Vivian, John D and my) approaches are quantitatively different (despite their double-loop nature) there’s bound to be a clash of models and opinions, which is great as long a people keep an open mind, which I think we all support.
> 
>     Grahame, what do you think is the meaning of the transverse velocity c/gamma in your (and my) electron models? Is anything moving at this speed? I don’t think so. The helically-circulating photon of a moving electron is moving at c. The electron is moving at v in the longitudinal direction. The electron's transverse momentum mc makes sense physically as an invariant independent of the electron’s speed. But is anything moving at the speed v/gamma in the longitudinal direction?
> 
>     Grahame, how can each full double loop of the circulating photon of a moving electron be a single wavelength long in your model? It would mean that the single wavelength of the circulating photon is increasing with electron velocity in order for the photon’s wavelength to fit (stretch) along the increasingly long two double loops of a helix of radius R=hbar/2mc of your moving electron model (same R as in your resting electron model). But since the energy of the electron is increasing with speed as E=gamma mc^2 = hf, the circulating photon’s frequency f is increasing as f=gamma fo (where fo=mc^2/h in a resting electron) so its wavelength is (by c=lambda f) decreasing as h/(gamma mc) with increasing electron speed as compared to a resting wavelength h/mc . Something’s got to give! In my model it is the radius of the photon's helix, which (I calculated) has to be R/(gamma^2) for the helically-circulating photon of a moving electron to have a length of one wavelength h/(gamma mc) along each double-loop length.  This also partly solves the experimental issue of the experimental size of an electron being less than 10^-18 m at around 30GeV in electron scattering experiments, which your model doesn’t address.
> 
>     Grahame, In your model, I repeat: if it composed of a circulating spin 1 hbar photon (at constant helical radius R) of spin hbar, the electron model at relativistic speeds will have a total longitudinal spin of about 1 1/2  hbar, which doesn’t match experiment at all. Again, something has got to give to match experimental spin z-component of hbar/2 of the electron at all velocities.
> 
>     John W, does your new photon/electron model clearly satisfy the electron’s experimentally established relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 ? Does it also satisfy the theoretical relationship P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2 where P=E/c is the total momentum of the circulating photon, p is the longitudinal momentum of the electron, and mc is the circulating momentum in a resting electron? If so, it means that the electron’s internal momentum mc and the electron’s longitudinal momentum p=gamma mv are at right angles. How does this relate to your moving electron model?
> 
>     John W, you have said earlier that your electron model has spin 1/2 hbar at all electron velocities. Does a calculation show this or is there some symmetry argument that proves this for your model?
> 
>     John W, I think no one here is claiming that the spin of an electron is at all like a spinning top, so this is a bit of a "straw man” argument. Thank you very much for your fuller explanation about spin.
> 
>     My current thinking about the electrons increasing their internal frequency f=gamma fo with electron speed means that the electron’s internal frequency (due to its circulating photon) is NOT like a macroscopic clock, since this electron frequency does not obey relativistic time dilation (it speeds up rather than slows down with increasing electron speed). This doesn’t mean that the electron (or a radioactive muon) doesn’t show time dilation in other ways, as with the increasing long half-life a relativistic muon with increasing speed compared to a resting muon.
> 
>    Finally (for now) electrons therefore are not like macroscopic objects like (light-clocks) that can reflect light up and down while the vertical light-clock moves in the horizontal direction maintaining a constant transverse length, to show and derive time dilation for the macroscopic light clock.  Electrons decrease their transverse size with longitudinal speed, but atoms and macroscopic objects do not. Vivian also pointed this out in his article, and I think that John W agrees also.
> 
>     Richard
>     
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160714/40df777b/attachment.htm>