[General] inertia
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Jun 2 13:37:58 PDT 2016
Hello Richard,
Zero evidence for a composite particle? I think that the evidence for a
composite particle model is very obvious:
- The model explains the mass and the momentum of a particle with NO
new parameters, from the scratch
- The model explains the magnetic moment of a particle classically with
no new parameters
- The model explains the constancy of the spin classically
- The model explains the equation E = h*f classically (was never
deduced before)
- The model explains the relativistic increase of mass and the
mass-energy relation E=m*c^2 independent of Einstein's space-time ideas.
And what is the evidence that the electron is NOT a composite particle?
Your electron model is built by photons, where the photon is also a
composite particle. So, what?
I do not know any other particle models with this ability. Do you? Such
properties are taken as a good evidence in physics. Or why do main
stream physics trust in the existence of an up-quark and a down-quark?
For both there was no direct evidence in any experiment. The reason to
accept their existence is the fact that this assumption makes some other
facts understandable. - The model of a composite particle is in no way
weaker.
Albrecht
Am 31.05.2016 um 20:19 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Albrecht and all,
>
> Since there is zero experimental evidence that the electron is a
> composite particle, I will no longer comment on Albrecht's electron
> model, which postulates as a principal feature that the electron is a
> composite particle, unless new experimental evidence is found that the
> electron is a composite particle after all.
>
> Galileo’s and Newton's “law of inertia" is clearly an expression of
> conservation of momentum of objects or “bodies” in the absence of an
> imposed external net force. It revolutionized mechanics because
> Aristotle had taught otherwise.
>
> If a resting electron is a circulating light-speed electrically
> charged photon with circulating momentum Eo/c, then an external force
> F on the electron equals the additional rate of change of momentum
> dp/dt of the circulating charged photon corresponding to that external
> force: F=dp/dt , beyond the constant rate of change of momentum of
> the circulating charged photon. The ratio of this applied force F (for
> example due to an applied electric field) to the circulating charged
> photon’s additional acceleration “a" is called the electron's inertial
> mass and is defined by F=ma or m=F/a . There is no separate mass-stuff
> or inertia-stuff to be accelerated in a particle. There is only the
> circulating momentum Eo/c of the circling speed-of-light particle with
> rest energy Eo , that is being additionally accelerated by the applied
> force F. Since the value m = Eo/c^2 of a resting particle (derived
> from the rate of change of the circulating momentum Eo/c as compared
> to its centripetal acceleration) is the same value in different
> reference frames, it is called the particle’s invariant mass m, but
> this invariant mass m is still derived from the resting particle’s
> internally circulating momentum Eo/c . If the electron is moving
> relativistically at v < c, it has an additional linear momentum
> p=gamma mv, which when added vectorially to the transverse circulating
> momentum Eo/c gives by the Pythagorean theorem a total circulating
> vector momentum P=gamma Eo/c = gamma mc=E/c where E is the electron’s
> total energy E=gamma mc^2. This is the origin of the electron’s
> relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 which
> is just another way to write the Pythagorean momentum vector
> relationship above: P^2 = p^2 + (Eo/c)^2 .
>
> In my understanding, the Higgs field gives a non-zero invariant mass
> (without being able to predict the magnitude of that mass) to certain
> particles according to the relativistic energy-momentum equation, so
> that any particle moving at v < c in a Higgs field has invariant mass
> m > 0. But the inertia of that invariant mass m is not explained by
> the action of the Higgs field, in my understanding.
>
> To try to theoretically explain why a photon has momentum p = hf/c
> and energy E=hf is a separate topic beyond trying to explain why a
> particle has inertial mass, or resistance to acceleration by an
> applied force.
>
> Richard
>
>> On May 30, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> your new paper has again a lot of nice mathematics. However, it again
>> does not answer the question of inertia. As earlier, you relate the
>> inertial mass of an electron to the mass of the circling photon which
>> builds in your understanding the electron. Then the mass and the
>> momentum of the electron is calculated from the mass and momentum of
>> the photon.
>>
>> Such calculation is of course possible if one follows this picture of
>> an electron. However, it does not answer the question of what the
>> cause of inertia and momentum of the photon is. You take this as an
>> 'a priory' fact. But this is not our present state of understanding.
>> Physics are able to go deeper.
>>
>> You write in your paper: "The fact is that the inertial property of
>> the mass of elementary particles is not understood". How can you
>> write this? Main stream physics have the Higgs model which is assumed
>> to describe the mass of elementary particles. And I have presented a
>> model which uses the fact that any extended object inevitably has
>> inertia. The reason is, as you know, that the fields of the
>> constituents of an extended object propagate with the finite speed of
>> light. If the extension of an elementary particle is taken from its
>> magnetic moment, this model provides very precisely the mass, the
>> momentum, and a lot of other parameters and properties of a particle.
>>
>> If you intend to explain the mass of an electron by the mass of a
>> photon, you should have an appropriate explanation of the mass and
>> other parameters of a photon. Otherwise I do not see any real
>> progress in the considerations of your paper.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Am 30.05.2016 um 07:40 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>> Hello Vladimir,
>>> Thanks. That could be an explanation. But I’m hoping I can find a
>>> simpler explanation, if possible.
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>> On May 29, 2016, at 7:29 PM, Vladimir Tamari
>>>> <vladimirtamari at hotmail.com <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 myBeautiful 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 thesurrounding 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
>>>> 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> 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> 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> 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> <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>
>>>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>>> Discussion
>>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> *Cc:*Alexander Burinskii <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> 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>
>>>> Date: 5/12/2016 2:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
>>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>>> Discussion
>>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> Cc: Alexander Burinskii <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
>>>> athttp://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Alexander+Burinskii/0/1/0/all/0/1 ,
>>>> biography
>>>> athttp://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> 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 hereaskedseveral 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
>>>> athttps://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>
>>>> 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*ny/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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication
>>>> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
>>>> Discussion List atrichgauthier 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 atdavidmathes8 at yahoo.com
>>>> <a
>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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 atvladimirtamari at hotmail.comClick
>>>> here to unsubscribe
>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>>>> Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier 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>
>>
>>
>> <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>
>>
>>
>
---
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/20160602/a82b70cb/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list