[General] Structure of electron

[davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]

Andrew
Yes, I hedged a bit. However, let me be clear. A release of energy may produce a particle or at least a wave that is as forceful and reactive as a particle and thus, misinterpreted as a particle.  Is there a cohesive energy blob moving through an energy field in the form of a particle or a wave?  A scalar-tensor approach may be required to resolve what is happening.

Given...
> ...bound radiation and, thus, standing waves and interference...describe how that EM energy density changes during the transit thru an eccentric orbit
This question sounds like the final exam in a graduate student class similar to the professor flipping a coin and asking to describe the motion of that particular coin from an alien standing on the surface of the sun.
I'm not happy with the words. "Emitted" is confusing and not indicating whether the emission conserves energy or not and more importantly, how an emission conserves momentum or not
In Newtonian physics, when two objects collide the conservation of momentum applies and is described as being either an elastic or inelastic collision. However, both objects have mass.
When one has a mass and a massless particle emitted as the speed of light, can we have both elastic or inelastic emissions? Under what conditions would energy in the form of a photon, perhaps even a phonon, be released without having a kinetic energy change to the mass. 
Experimentally, one might begin by swinging a ball on a string in an orbit.
Still swinging the ball while boarding a roller coaster, one might produce the requisite eccentric orbit.
If one varied the field energy in particle during the emission process, a roller coast-like eccentric effect might be produced. 
What may be occurring is the interaction of near and far fields of the particle and the photon.  So beyond the Newtonian kinetic physics, for a two mass particles with fields, elementary in particular, I would expect three cases of kinetic-like field interactions:
Ignoring the Yukawa potential and symmetry breaking for now, for similar particles such as mass-mass or charged only, AND assuming every particle has both attractive and repulsive fields we have three field interaction cases perhaps four.
None
Near-nearNear-farFar-far
For a mass (electron, proton, neutron) and massless ( photon/phonon) particle. I will use M for mass and P for massless. So now we have seven possibilities. 
None
Near(M)-near(P)Near(M)-far(P)Far(M)-far(P)
Near(P)-near(M)Near(P)-far(M)Far(P)-far(M)
The strength and distance of each field will need to be accounted for. 
Note that we could go even further by splitting the near field into the reactive near field and the radiative near field. So emissions can be broken down into the far field as well as radiating near field aka the Fresnel field. 
At the Newtonian level, we typically have far-far interactions although I'm wondering how Couder's team would model this with their walking drops. However, at the elementary level one of the particles is spin 1/2 and the other spin 1. Therein lies yet another conservation issue.
Given that during the emission, the mass particle is at rest and the massless particle is at c or thereabouts, one now has relativistic considerations to also consider especially in view of a possible fluctuation around c between c -0.1% to potentially c + 0.1%. Can the conditions defining c such as permittivity and permeability be modulated in such a way as to create transient local conditions? 
One is left to consider that quantum conditions may be influenced by the Dirac sea, even in a negative vacuum, and that Mach may have been right when all the universe affects the local conditions.






 



 
   

   From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
 To: Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 7:42 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] Structure of electron
  
Dear Hodge & Dave,

You have confirmed my fears. Hodge takes the opposite position from me and Dave, while providing good information and references (of which I'll use one or more in another paper), hedged. However, he says "a photon can be emitted." So he agrees with me in that usage.

Since I am concerned about bound radiation and, thus, standing waves and interference, what words can I use to describe how that EM energy density changes during the transit thru an eccentric orbit? Fearn's 1st article gives some good words and usages.  Not quite what I need; but, I won't ask for more information or belabor the point, since that is not what this thread is all about. However, I thank you both for the feedback.

Andrew
_________________________________________

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com> wrote:

Andrew:Very subtle.I define “radiate” as releasing or have removed a part ofsomething. So photons radiate from hot material (classically).I define “emit” as causing a change in something. So a boattraveling on water emits waves but does not radiate waves. “Radiate” is asubset of “emit”. The STOE model has a plenum that is infinitely divisible(water is not). We have no instrument that measures anything about the plenumdirectly. All measurements are of the effect the plenum has on hods (crudely-matter - descrete things subject to being counted). There is at least 10^6hods per photon. Scale is part of the question. Some use these terms in reverseorder or, worse, interchangeably (because the physics is lost or confused andwe have a flaw in logic called changing definition of terms during the argument- very bad). Much of the standard model terms derive form classicalanalogies such as rotation (revolution about a center), spin (on an axis).Digitations and quantization have been evoked to describe the energies measuredsuch as “space quantization”. I think there are much better analogies andmodels than should be used. My recent paper starts down this path forelementary particles. The start was really the photon and the diffractionpapers. The result of varying illumination across a slit predicted anexperimental observation that no other model to date can explain. Anothercharacteristic that had to be invoked was the idea the plenum had to haveinertia energy and the hod had gravitational energy.  I thought of 2 models of the electron in an atom, which Ihaven’t explored to yield experiment consistency. One is that electrons areheld by photons (millions of hods in a column). An analogy would be spokesholding a mass at a fixed distance from a hub. Moving from one energy level toanother requires a change (add or subtract material for the spoke) in thelength of photons (frequency, color, wavelength) of established (discretelengths). This is not a physical process of orbiting and no angular momentum isinvolved although the math of the angular momentum energy change may be used.There is no energy change without the spokes. Shooting spokes at the electronwill be absorbed only if the spoke is the correct length. Otherwise the matterjust flies off. The physics of angular momentum is an incorrect language/mathto describe the physics. Therefore, we can have electrons in an atom withoutabsorbing or emitting energy. The analogy for the other thought is the “walking drop”experiment. Two drops have been observed to revolve around each other becauseeach is in a minima of the others wave in the medium and the summation of thewaves has a slight slope toward the center of the drops. Here we getdiscreteness in a continuous medium because of the minima of the waves being a discretedistance apart (wavelength) - Like de Broglie suggests. This form ofdiscreteness in a continuous medium is why Fourier analysis works in quantummechanics. Hods (the only measured things) seek the minima or the waves in theplenum. Note the walking drop medium is excited by external medium to be justbelow the point where waves would form spontaneously. This is energy input. Thewaking drop alternately puts potential energy into and takes motion (kineticenergy) out. Potential energy - hod related such as gravitational energy.Kinetic energy - plenum energy such as inertial energy. The plenum energy isnot measured except through the plenum’s action on hods. If the input photonsare not correct, the plenum response is not measured except through the increaseof temperature (the energy bath like the oil bath has an average energyreflected in the heat [temperature] energy of the universe. The movement of theelectron around the nucleus may absorb and emit (plenum) equal energy without“friction” (dampening). (at this scale there is no “friction”). I was asking the “exhaustion” question to have other’sanswers to help develop my model.  Hodge 

    On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 11:15 AM, "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
 

 John
Sorry, I forgot about the lod. 
Not sure about the radiation vs emission issue. Radiation usually suggests radiation reaction and radiation resistance issues.
What is really puzzling is how a photon can be emitted without a radiation reaction as if conservation of momentum may not matter at the quantum level. 
Here are some recent papers that discuss radiation reaction that may be of interest. 
   
   - arXiv:1212.4469 [pdf, ps, other]
      - Radiation Reaction Force on a ParticleH. Fearn, J. BengtssonComments: 13 pages, 0 figuresSubjects: Classical Physics (physics.class-ph)   

   - arXiv:1301.7051 [pdf, ps, other]
      - On radiation reaction and the [x,p ] commutator for an accelerating chargeH. FearnComments: 8 pages, 0 figuresSubjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Mathematical Physics (math-ph)
   
   - 2.  arXiv:1501.00970 [pdf, ps, other]
      - A delayed choice quantum eraser explained by the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanicsH. FearnComments: 24 pages 4 figures, fifth draftSubjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
   - 3.  arXiv:1412.5426 [pdf, ps, other]
      - Mach's principle, Action at a Distance and CosmologyH. FearnComments: The work is related to advanced waves and Cramer's transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. The paper has been submitted to the Journal of Modern Physics (jmp) a special issue on "Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology"Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
   -    

   -    


 
      From: Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com>
 To: "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 8:43 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] Structure of electron
  
David:“madeof” - your thinking in the standard model. Magnetism is the property of thesmallest particle - the hod. As I mention in the photon construction. In anymodel, there must be a start. As I mention in the 1st paragraph ofthe discussion - magnetism (2 poles N and S) rather than a positive of negativecharge is a property of the smallest particle. The charge then must be derivedfrom the magnetic field rather than the magnetic field of rotation charges.  Othershave suggested a circulating something. A circulating anything is inconsistentwith the variable illumination of the diffraction and interference experiment(hodge2015a and 2015c). That is the photon must generate a diffraction wavelike a linear array of dipole antennas (the analogy). Circulating anything thatthen goes to make a photon assembly becomes incredibly complex and unlikely.The photon must have variable energy to make the different frequencies. That iscirculating quanta is inconsistent with the experiment. ButI see you suggest one model. So the challenge is to match the properties withthe experimental results such as in hodge2015c. I don’t see how to do it. Rotatinganything must emit radiation. What keeps it from exhaustion? Hodge 

    On Monday, March 28, 2016 2:18 PM, "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
 

 John
Interesting work by explaining that only elementary particle theory is needed and not spacetime theories.
> The polarization of photons in a magnetic field suggests the photons are magnets.
And what is the magnet made of? Are we talking of an oscillating monopole states or some sub-elementary (sub-sub-atomic) particle such as an energy, quanta or quantized spacetime?
If there is an quanta circulating within a photon, could it be that the quanta has both subliminal and superluminal velocities, and we can only see the subliminal. With twisted light, the paper suggest a c - 0.1% variation and the mere possibility that  c + 0.1% variation might be enough to block direct observation of FTL. 
Just like the photonic electron models, could there be a quanta circulating within the photon in some topology such as a cylinder or washer configuration. After all, the parametric equations for a photonic electron can produce both topologies of ring and spindle torus. If one tunes the variables in the parametric equation, cylinder and washer topologies can be obtained. In either case, the quanta would travel forward on the inner surface and return on the outer surface.
Obviously , the cylinder would support the magnet theory of the photon.  However, so would a soliton wave with a washer topology. 
This leaves open the possibility that the sub-elementary particle may be a resonant circulating g magnetic monopole.
David


 
      From: Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com>
 To: "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 9:52 PM
 Subject: [General] Structure of electron
  
This may be of interest. https://www.academia.edu/23702413/Structure_and_spin_of_the_neutrino_electron_and_positron Structureand spin of the neutrino, electron, and positron TheScalar Theory of Everything (STOE) model of photons is extended to a model ofthe structure of neutrinos, electrons and positrons. The polarization ofphotons in a magnetic field suggests the photons are magnets. This observationand the STOE model of the photon suggest the hods are magnetic. Using discmagnets as an analogy of hods suggests the structure of elementary particles.The relative abundance of elementary particles and anti--particles is dependenton their relative probability of formation that depends on the difficulty offorming their structure. The structure of the neutrino explains why itsvelocity is the velocity of photons. The structure of large neutrinos suggestshow they can transform into electron neutrinos. The position of north seekingmagnetic poles relative to the direction of movement is qualitativelyconsistent with the ``spin'' observation. The postulate of ``spacequantization'' is unnecessary. The structure models are consistent with severalobservations of elementary particle behavior.  Hodge
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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 at mules333 at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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 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>


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160330/adaadaf5/attachment.htm>