[General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Wed Jun 1 10:16:36 PDT 2016

Chip:

Can I throw in a couple of comments…

I think The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close describes why special relativity works: because of the wave nature of matter.

I would venture to suggest that the implication of John and Martin’s paper is that QED is incomplete, that QCD is misleading, that the Standard Model is wrong, that the Higgs mechanism cannot be the reason for mass, and that the Higgs boson therefore cannot have been discovered. Do bear this in mind when they struggle to get a paper into Nature.   

Regards

John Duffield

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 01 June 2016 15:10
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Dear John Williamson and Martin van der Mark

Your 1997 paper on the electron may have had a much greater influence than you thought.

The aspect of this which I would like to address is the simple premise that matter is made from confined light-speed energy.

If this is true then there is only one form of “relativity” which can be supported.

The consequences of matter being comprised of confined light-speed energy lead to inescapable conclusions regarding “relativity”.

Are there comments from the group?

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Tamari
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 9:30 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] inertia

Richard, 

without going into the details of your model, you mentioned:

"It may be that vector momentum is just not conserved within fundamental particles even though it is conserved between two or more particles in their mutual interactions"

In cellular-automata schemes, such as my Beautiful Universe <http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf> ,  a particle is made up of a pattern of spinning nodes in a matrix. The same type of spinning nodes also form the surrounding magnetic, gravitational or electrostatic field etc.  Any changes in the angular momentum or the axis of spin of the constituent nodes of a particle (or photon wave) is transmitted as a domino effect adjusting the angular momentum of surrounding nodes both internally and externally. The domino effect is diffused unto infinity in inverse-square fashion. Nothing is hidden or lost or subject to uncertainty, and energy is always conserved. 

In your case by taking the photon and electron in isolation conservation issues seem to be arising? Hope this helps.

Best wishes

Vladimir

  _____  

From: richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> 
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 17:31:33 -0700
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
CC: jsarfatti at aol.com <mailto:jsarfatti at aol.com> 
Subject: Re: [General] inertia

Hello all,

  I’ve been thinking about the unexplained 0.424 Newtons force acting on a circulating double-looped charged photon to keep it in its trajectory. Any double-looping-photon electron model should have this force acting on the circling photon, such John and Martin’s model and Chip’s model.  The force doesn’t have an obvious source. It continuously changes the direction of the circling momentum without changing the resting energy of the photon. It may be that vector momentum is just not conserved within fundamental particles even though it is conserved between two or more particles in their mutual interactions. I believe that the Dirac equation solution for a free electron hints at this internal non-conservation of momentum  also during zitterbewegung motion of the free electron whose average velocity is v but whose eigenvalue for speed is c. The position-momentum relations for the double-looped photon model of the electron, as I recall, are below or just at the  the exact uncertainty expression of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: delta x  times delta p > 1/2   hbar , for position and momentum of an object in a particular coordinate direction. So it might not be possible to experimentally determine if linear momentum is conserved or not within a particle. The indirect evidence that there is such circulating momentum in a particle is the inertial mass m=Eo/c^2 of the particle as it is derived from the photon’s circulating momentum p=Eo/c . If there is circling momentum for a single particle, then momentum conservation within the particle IS being violated. An analogy: just as an electron has spin but it not experimentally known what inside it is “spinning", an electron has inertial mass but it is not known what inside the particle is “massing”. But but the spin and the inertial mass are known experimentally. A double-looping photon model explains both what is “spinning" and what is “massing" in an electron.

     Richard

On May 27, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hello all,

Jack Sarfatti, a well-known physicist, wrote back to me about my article saying that no one cares about this work, that it is just re-inventing the wheel and that it is not a good problem to work on. Comments?

     Richard

On May 26, 2016, at 8:25 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> > wrote:

Dear John W, Martin, Chandra, Alexander, Chip, Andrew, Vivian, Albrecht, John M, David and all,

<A New Derivation of E=mc^2 explains a particle's inertia.pdf>

Here’s my latest input to the inertia/particles discussion: my proposed new derivation of Eo=mc^2 and the inertial mass of a particle from the momentum of a circling photon.

     Richard

On May 17, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> > wrote:

David

  These newly discovered photons seem very similar to helically-moving spin-1/2 charged photons, except for their lack of electric charge. Perhaps these new spin-1/2 photons become spin-1/2 charged photons when they curl up in pairs of photons with opposite charge, as in e-p pair production : "Researchers made their discovery after passing light through special crystals to create a light beam with a hollow, screw-like structure. Using quantum mechanics, the physicists theorized that the beam's twisting photons were being slowed to a half-integer of Planck's constant.”

      Richard

On May 17, 2016, at 1:56 PM, <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> > <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> > wrote:

Richard

If pbotons weren't confusing enough...just as Williams proposed a quantum number for energy, these researchers are proposing a quantum number for angular momentum.

The article

Scientists discover new form of light <http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/05/17/Scientists-discover-new-form-of-light/9061463490086/> 

"The newly discovered form of light, however, features photons with an angular momentum of just half the value of Planck's constant. The difference sounds small, but researchers say the significance of the discovery is great.'

The paper

There are many ways to spin a photon: Half-quantization of a total optical angular momentum | Science Advances <http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501748.full> 

Best

David

  _____  

From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> >
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> > 
Cc: Alexander Burinskii <bur at ibrae.ac.ru <mailto:bur at ibrae.ac.ru> >
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: [General] inertia

Hello Chandra and all,

   This is very good news. I’ve been reading several of Alexander Burinskii’s recent (2015 and 2016) published papers on his Kerr-Newman bag model of the electron (2 pdf’s attached). His approach integrates black-hole gravitational theory, Higgs theory and electromagnetism to produce a internally-light-speed model of the electron with radius hbar/2mc like John W and Martin’s, Chip’s, Vivian’s and my double-looping-photon electron models. Alexander's electron model is energetically stable, contains a circulating light-speed singularity (a photon?) in addition to an electromagnetic wave circling along its outer rim along a circular gravitational string, has g=2 (Dirac magnetic moment of magnitude 1 Bohr magneton), is a fermion and carries the electron’s charge. I think Alexander’s electron model has much to offer, coming from a different perspective than much of our group’s electron modeling. I request Alexander to give us a summary of the key features (and perhaps a brief history) of his electron model, emphasizing the nature of its stability (an important issue in circling-photon electron models.) I hope that this will stimulate a critical discussion of his approach in comparison with our various approaches to electron modeling, which could lead to better light-speed-based electron models coming up to the next SPIE “What are photons” conference in San Diego in August 2017.

     Richard  

On May 12, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> > wrote:

I will request Burinskii to participate in our next conference. 

Chandra. 

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 5 ACTIVE™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> > 
Date: 5/12/2016 2:09 AM (GMT-05:00) 
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> > 
Cc: Alexander Burinskii <bur at ibrae.ac.ru <mailto:bur at ibrae.ac.ru> > 
Subject: Re: [General] inertia 

Dear John W, Martin, Chandra, Vivian, Andrew, John M, Chip, Albrecht, Hodge and others,

   I am in contact with the Russian physicist and academician Alexander Burinskii (arXiv page of his articles at http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Alexander+Burinskii/0/1/0/all/0/1 , biography at http://www.scirp.org/journal/DetailedInforOfEditorialBoard.aspx?personID=10183 ), who has written a very interesting article on arXiv: “Gravity vs. quantum theory: Is the electron really pointlike?” at http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0225 . He draws on the interesting resemblance of Kerr-Newman gravity formulations to the properties of the Dirac electron as a light-speed particle that can only be measured at sub-light speeds. Here’s part of the abstract:

"Contrary to the widespread opinion that gravity plays essential role only on the Planck scales, the Kerr-Newman gravity displays a new dimensional parameter a=ℏ/(2m), which for parameters of an electron corresponds to the Compton wavelength and turns out to be very far from the Planck scale. Extremely large spin of the electron with respect to its mass produces the Kerr geometry without horizon, which displays very essential topological changes at the Compton distance resulting in a two-fold structure of the electron background. The corresponding gravitational and electromagnetic fields of the electron are concentrated near the Kerr ring, forming a sort of a closed string, structure of which is close to the described by Sen heterotic string. The indicated by Gravity stringlike structure of the electron contradicts to the statements of Quantum theory that electron is pointlike and structureless. However, it confirms the peculiar role of the Compton zone of the "dressed" electron and matches with the known limit of the localization of the Dirac electron." 

   I think that there some potential for Alexander Burinskii's Kerr-Newman gravity approach to the electron and the various double-looping photon models of the electron to find some common ground which may benefit both approaches to modeling the electron. In particular the centripetal force of 0.424 N causing a photon of energy 0.511 MeV to move in a closed double-looping trajectory of radius Ro=hbar/2mc in a resting electron model could be related to the gravitational and electromagnetic fields and gravity stringlike structure of the Kerr-Newman electron model. 

    Richard

On May 9, 2016, at 4:37 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> > wrote:

Hello Richard,

it is true that we do not know everything in physics (otherwise there would be no reason for further research). However, many facts and rules are understood, and I do not see a good reason to go behind this knowledge.

>From my 2-particle model it follows for leptons and for quarks that there is E = h*ny. The frequency is the circulation, the energy follows from the mass which the model yields, when using E = m*c^2. This latter relation also follows from this model. (I have presented all this in San Diego; it was also discussed here earlier as I remember; and it is on my web site "The Origin of Mass". Of course I can explain it here again if there is a demand.)

As these relations obviously also apply to the photon, it seems very plausible that the photon has a similar structure like a lepton and a quark. The rules apply if c is inserted for the speed. This also leads to p=h*ny/c.

And which further details do we know about the photon? It must have an extension as it has a spin which is physically not possible without an extension. And it must have charges as it reacts with an electric field which is otherwise not explainable. There must be at least two charges, a positive and a negative one, as the photon as a whole is neutral. The spin is twice the one of a lepton or a quark, this may be an indication that the photon is built by 4 sub-particles rather than 2 of the kind which I have described. 

So, if the photon has positive and negative charges, which means that it has sub-particles with positive and negative charges, it is quite plausible that the photon can decompose into a positive and a negative elementary particle, so into a positron and an electron. 

(You may call this speculative. But it has some strongly plausible aspects which I am missing in the other models presented here.)

The curling-up which you have mentioned has an orbital component. To move on an orbit needs some physical conditions. E.g. an influence which causes the acceleration to its center. This should be physically explained.

The conflict between the necessary Higgs field and the vacuum field in the universe is treated in the article of F.J. Tipler in 
arXiv:astro-ph/0111520v1 . It is well known by particle physicists   I have at conferences here asked several times the presenters of the Higgs model for this discrepancy. They have always admitted that this conflict exists, but some have tried to blame the astronomers for it. No one ever has presented a solution for the conflict.

Albrecht

Am 07.05.2016 um 23:32 schrieb Richard Gauthier:

Hello Albrecht,

    Thank your for your further comments and questions.

    Your are asking me why photons have momentum p=hv/c . That’s like asking why photons have energy E=hv . In physics nobody knows “why” anything happens. “Why?” questions always lead back to a big unknown. Physicists observe nature qualitatively and quantitatively and search for cause-effect relations,  equations, theoretical models and symmetry relations that work ("save the appearances"), and lead to further and better (more accurate) physical predictions that often lead to practical applications and hopefully deeper “understanding” of physical phenomena.

     You ask why a spin-1/2 photon curls up. You could just as well ask why a spin-1 photon doesn’t curl up, since it has spin. (My transluminal energy quantum model of a spin-1 photon at https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron  is a helical model that is consistent with  both a photon's spin-1 hbar and its forward linear momentum p=h/lambda). 

      Your own comments on the possible nature and make-up of photons are extremely speculative to say the least. You have no photon model at all. There is zero experimental evidence that a photon is composite. You should at least try to show how a sufficiently energetic photon leads to your electron model in electron-positron pair production.

      You claim that astronomers deny the existence of a Higgs field strong enough to explain noticeable forces in elementary particles. That is a blanket statement that needs supporting evidence. Please support your claim here with sources. It’s like claiming that “scientists say”.  Thanks.

        Richard

On May 7, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> > wrote:

Hello Richard,

thank you for your mail. I still have questions to your explanations:

To para 1):
According to you explanations the circular motion is mainly achieved by the fact that the particles are "curling up". Which physical law do you have in mind that causes them to curl up? What are the quantitative consequences? - You say that there is a "configurational" force which controls the internal motion of an electron and a positron. You assume that this may come from the Higgs field. I think that this is highly speculative as astronomers deny the existence of a Higgs field which is strong enough to be an explanation for noticeable forces in elementary particles.

To para 2):
The momentum of a photon is h*n y/c, true. But what is the physical mechanism causing this momentum? Still not answered. 
I believe that my mass mechanism is applicable to the photon. The photon has an extension, so it has inertia by the standard mechanism for extended objects. And in addition I think that the photon may be composed by the same sub-particles ("basic particles") like leptons and quarks. The question still open for me is, why the photon moves steadily with c. An explanation may be that it moves always into a certain direction with respect to its internal set up. On the other hand, the fact that the rest mass of the photon is zero is nothing more than a mathematical result. Was never measured. 

Albrecht 

Am Sat, 30 Apr 2016 um 17:22:00 schrieb Richard Gauthier:

Hello Albrecht,

    Thank you for your two thoughtful questions.

To try to answer them:

1) I think it is an incorrect assumption that only a second electric charge or a corresponding permanent field can cause a spin-1/2 charged photon to move in a circular or helical configuration. Have you considered other possible explanations? One I have considered, in the context of e-p production, is that two uncharged spin-1/2 photons of are formed in the process of electron-positron pair production from a spin-1 photon of sufficient energy (greater than 1.022 MeV). At first the two uncharged spin-1/2 photons both move forward together in a kind of unstable equilibrium. One has a negative charge potentiality and the other has a positive charge potentiality, yet both are still neutral. These two uncharged spin-1/2 photons can either then unite with each other to form a spin-1 photon, or they can separate in the presence of a nearby charged nucleus and each curl up, gaining negative and positive charge respectively, as well as rest mass Eo/c^2, and slowing down (as they become an electron and positron) to less than light-speed as they curl up. (Internally these spin-1/2 charged photons maintain light-speed c in their forward direction, but their curled-up configurations as a electron and a positron have v < c .) Once they are both fully curled up to form a fully charged electron and positron, they continue to move apart. Now they each have a stable internal equilibrium (because of conservation of electric charge) and they cannot individually unroll (except perhaps virtually) to become an uncharged spin-1/2 photon, and so they remain a stable electron and a stable positron. Their own charged curled-up stable equilibrium maintains them in their curled-up configurations, supplying the necessary configurational force that maintains their circulating motion to form an electron or a positron. This configurational force that maintains each of them curled up would be a non-electrical force. Perhaps this configurational force that maintains the electron and the positron curled up with rest mass and moving at less than light-speed c, comes from the Higgs field.

    When an electron and positron meet, they may first form a positronium atom. Then they both uncurl and unite to form an unstable neutral particle which decays immediately into two or three spin-1 photons, in the process of electron-positron annihilation.

2) Why does the spin-1/2 charged photon have momentum? you ask.  It is because it is a photon with momentum hv/c . My model of the spin-1/2 charged photon is similar to my internally transluminal model of an uncharged photon, except  that the spin-1/2 charged photon makes two helical loops instead of one per photon wavelength, and the spin-1/2 charged photon model's helical radius is 1/2 that of the helical radius of a spin-1 photon model , being R=lambda/4pi instead of lambda/2 pi. The uncurled transluminal spin-1/2 uncharged photon model curls up nicely into a curled-up double-looping spin-1/2 charged photon model of an electron. You can read about my superluminal uncharged photon model at https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron or I can e-mail you a copy. I have only talked about my current model of the superluminal spin-1/2 charged photon on the “Nature of Light and Particles” e-list during the past year.

I hope these possible explanations of the spin-1/2 charged-photon model are helpful. I don’t think that you have a photon model yet that is consistent with your two-particle electron model, in terms of e-p production and e-p annihilation.

The figure below, which I included in this e-list some months ago, shows a curled-up spin 1/2 charged photon forming a resting electron (top graphic) and at different increasing relativistic speeds (lower graphics). The green line is the double-looping helical trajectory of the circulating charged photon forming the electron, while the red line is the trajectory of the superluminal energy quantum of the spin-1/2 photon model. The superluminal energy quantum in the resting electron moves on the surface of a mathematical horn torus. As the speed v of the electron model increases, the radius of the green helical trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 , while  the radius of the red trajectory of the superluminal quantum decreases as 1/gamma. 

 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Virenfrei. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> 

_______________________________________________
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 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 vladimirtamari at hotmail.com <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com>  Click here to unsubscribe  <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160601/5b9910ff/attachment.htm>