[General] inertia
Richard Gauthier
richgauthier at gmail.com
Thu Jun 2 15:53:33 PDT 2016
Hello Albrecht,
My electron model is built of a single circulating spin-1/2 charged photon. It is not built “by photons”. I know of no experimental evidence that a photon is a composite particle as you claim. Please cite any accepted experimental evidence that a photon is a composite particle. Thanks.
Richard
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>
> 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 < <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>genmail at a-giese.de <mailto: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 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: <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>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 < <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>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 < <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>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, < <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto: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 < <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>>
>>>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>>>> Cc: Alexander Burinskii < <mailto:bur at ibrae.ac.ru>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 < <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>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 < <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>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 < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>>>> Cc: Alexander Burinskii < <mailto:bur at ibrae.ac.ru>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>http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Alexander+Burinskii/0/1/0/all/0/1 <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>http://www.scirp.org/journal/DetailedInforOfEditorialBoard.aspx?personID=10183 <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>http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0225 <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 < <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>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>https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron <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 < <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>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>https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron <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. <http://www.avast.com/>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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>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>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <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 <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>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&unsubconfirm=1>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <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 at <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com>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>_______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>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 <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 phys 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://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>
>
>
> <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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160602/4dbc35a3/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list