Hi Chip,
what is a wave? A wave is a field which fluctuates in a somewhat regular
way. And what is a field? A field is a human abstraction to describe the
influence of a charge.
Of course a wave can have a positive and a negative region. That is the
case if the wave is caused by positive and negative charges. So, if a
photon can be identified with a wave, there must be charges of both sign
in a photon. - Any other understanding of a field or of a wave is in my
view a typical mystification as we know it from QM. Why refer to such
mystifications if they are not necessary? I have understood that the
goal of all of us (who are looking for particle models) is to make the
picture as simple as possible. And that should mean: No mystifications,
so no fields without a cause, no waves without a cause. Isn't that simple?
Albrecht
Am 04.06.2016 um 16:52 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> No. A wave in space could easily have a positive region and a
> negative region and still be one wave. So your statement “This is one
> of the indications that a photon has to be composite.” Is not really
> correct.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2016 9:41 AM
> *To:* Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] inertia
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> the experimental evidence that a photon must be a composite object
> happens e.g. in every radio exchange. The photon interacts with
> electric charges, this is only possible if one assumes that the photon
> has electric charge. Now, as it is electrically neutral as a whole,
> there must be a balance of positive and negative electric charge(s).
> Those have to have some separation as otherwise they could not react
> with an outside charge. This is one of the indications that a photon
> has to be composite.
>
> The other way to understand the photon is the way of quantum
> mechanics. In the view of QM the photon is merely a quantum of energy.
> Any further understanding of it is - by the view of QM - not possible.
> To treat a photon physically and quantitatively requires the use of
> the QM formalism, however, (as usual at QM) without a direct
> understanding. - This is the position of QM which is formally allows
> for a point-like photon. But I think that no one in our group is
> willing to follow QM in this respect. All efforts undertaken here come
> from the desire to have a physical understanding. And this includes
> necessarily (in my view) that the photon is composite.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 03.06.2016 um 00:53 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <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
> 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
> <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
> 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
> <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
> 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
> <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*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
> <http://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
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>
>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to
> receive communication from
> the Nature of Light and
> Particles General
> Discussion List
> atdavidmathes8 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">
> 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.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 atrichgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
> <https://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>
>
>
---
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/20160608/57d9d102/attachment.htm>