[General] Richard's thoughts on electron models

[Dr Grahame Blackwell]

Hi Richard (et al.),

I thoroughly agree with everything you've said in your first three paras below, it's a helpful summary of the state of play.

As I'm sure you'll know, though, I equally thoroughly disagree with your final two paras.  Just as an example: "Vivian and Grahame leave out from their electron models consideration of the wavelength lambda=h/(gamma mc) of the circulating charged photon-like object"; I can't speak for Vivian, but this is most assuredly not true in my case; you'll see from my latest communication (as well as earlier ones) that I consider this a crucial element of the electron model - ANY electron model.  For my part I have pointed out a clear inconsistency (as I see it) in your model, which appears to claim to deliver synchronised (double-)helical circuits and photon wavelengths despite the fact that the former is DEcreased in frequency by time dilation and the latter is INcreased in frequency by energy consideration (as per your comment that I've quoted above).

I also still await (with bated breath) your explanation, with supporting experimental evidence, of the concept of a "charged photon".  If you could add to that your explanation of how you resolve the apparent paradox I've just highlighted, I'll be doubly delighted.

Best regards,
Grahame


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Richard Gauthier 
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 1:38 AM
Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group


Hello Chandra and others,


   Thank your for emphasizing the importance of our constructively critiquing each others' ideas and models, and building on each others’ ideas and proposals where possible. I think we all are looking for the most reasonable particle-with-mass models, as ultimately determined by which models best stand up to experimental verification or falsification. But the models need to be internally consistent mathematically as well. Photon-like objects may not be the ultimate constituents of particles with mass, because a photon may be composed of a more fundamental entity such as the proposed transluminal energy quantum (TEQ) or some other energy-momentum-spin-related sub-quantum entity.


   I feel like this discussion group is moving towards a resolution of a description of the dependence on gamma of the radius of the trajectory of a photon-like particle composing a relativistic electron (as opposed to the the dependence on gamma of the effective radius of the photon-like object itself, which is a separate issue). The participants in this discussion group who have electron models to which this question is relevant are John W, Grahame, Vivian, Alex, Chip and myself and perhaps John M.   Albrecht’s electron model is not composed of a circulating photon-like object and is in a class by itself (although the 2 massless particles in his electron model move at light speed in a circle of circumference Lcompton = h/mc ,  so there are similarities with his model and the other electron models. All of these electron models contain light speed circular motion for a resting electron, so this seems to be the common foundation of this approach  to describing the energy structure of fundamental particles with mass such as the electron.


   The persons who seem closest to resolving this issue as a result of recent discussions here are Vivian, Grahame, Chip and myself. Graham has proposed that for a relativistic  electron model the photon-like object’s helical trajectory is independent of gamma. Vivian has proposed that this helical trajectory’s radius decreases as 1/gamma, and in my model the trajectory’s radius decreases as 1/gamma^2. Chip has not yet clearly stated his preference for a gamma dependence in his model, though I think he is leaning towards a 1/gamma dependence, so I hope he will weigh in on thus point. Inputs from John W, Alex and John D on this point will be helpful. 


   Of course, all three of these proposals for the possible gamma dependence of the radius of the photon-like object’s helical trajectory could be wrong experimentally. But it is logically implausible that all three of them, or even two out of three of them, can be experimentally correct since they seem mutually contradictory. I have pointed out that both Vivian and Grahame leave out from their electron models consideration of the wavelength lambda=h/(gamma mc) of the circulating charged photon-like object found from the relationship hf = hc/lambda = gamma mc^2,  which is produced by equating the energy E=hf=hc/lambda of the helically circulating photon-like object with the energy E=gamma mc^2 of a relativistic electron. (De Broglie used this relationship hf=gamma mc^2 in deriving the de Broglie wavelength for a relativistic electron, but he did not conceive of the electron as composed of a circulating photon-like object.) If Vivian and Grahame both accept that this photon wavelength lambda=h/(gamma mc) should be included in their electron models, this will require some adjustment in their models which could alter their predictions of the dependence of their trajectory radius on gamma, and could allow the 4 of us to come to a common conclusion on this significant point for modeling the electron. This would not be an insignificant result in my opinion, given the range of ideas associated other aspects of these electron models. 


   The advantage to each electron model here of including the photon-like object’s wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) is that it is very easy to derive the de Broglie wavelength from this wavelength using the fact that the forward angle theta of all three helical trajectories above is given by cos(theta) = v/c . The helically circulating photon-like object's wave vector K is given by  K = 2pi/lambda = 2pi/(h/gamma mc)  =   (gamma mc)/hbar . The longitudinal component of K along the helical axis (corresponding to the modeled electron’s velocity direction) is given by k = K cos (theta) = (gamma mc)/hbar  x v/c = gamma mv/hbar .  This k corresponds to the wavelength Lambda = 2pi/k = 2pi/(gamma mv/hbar) = 2pi x hbar/(gamma mv) = h/(gamma mv) = Ldebroglie which is the relativistic de Broglie wavelength.


     Richard  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170122/b3a9634b/attachment.htm>