[General] light and particles group; Pilot Wave unnecessary

ANDREW WORSLEY member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk
Mon Jan 30 00:12:02 PST 2017


Easy

Electron Mass depends on the number of quanta h/c^2, which in turn depends on the spherical model of the electron charge based on the speed of light- 
because it made form a photon.

I have since developed 11dp accuracty on the mass and electron magnetic moment anomaly from first principles etc etc etc.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253298817_Harmonic_quintessence_and_the_derivation_of_the_charge_and_mass_of_the_electron_and_the_proton_
and_quark_masses.


But I still have a question the electron charge deviates form the perfectly spherical by approx. 1.87% ( exact number can be calaculated), is this just the magnetic 
component and what is the magnetic component of the photon compared to the electric component of the photon?


Andrew


========================================
Message Received: Jan 29 2017, 03:58 PM
From: "Chip Akins" 
To: "'ANDREW WORSLEY'" , "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" 

Cc: 
Subject: RE: [General] light and particles group; Pilot Wave unnecessary

Hi Andrew



So how can we discover why it is that the electron at rest can only contain
1.23559003630488E+20 of these "mass quanta"?



Why not twice as many, or half as many?



In our understanding of physics and the physical constants, what is it that
explains the specific quantization of mass of the electron?



Chip





-----Original Message-----
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 4:38 AM
To: ANDREW WORSLEY ; Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion
; phys at a-giese.de
Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group; Pilot Wave unnecessary



Hi Grahame/All





Heres the answer to the momentum of a photon.



Lets start with the conventional eaquation for the photon



E = hf.



What does that actually mean?



Lets break this down, h is the fundamental quantum of energy.



Actually dimensionally energy multiplied by time, but every thing at the
quantum level has a frequency so that's fine. so we have [E].[T]. [T^-1] =
E.



But remeber we are talking quantum physics here, so the minimum quantum
frequency =1



Or if we are using integers of the value n, then E=hn.



We can liken this to currency, the total amount of money you have is eqaul
to the minimum currency (lets say the cent) multiplied by the number of
cents.



Equally the total amount of energy you have is equal to the minumum energy
currency (h) multiplied by the number of quanta (n) So E =hn.





But waht does that really mean? On a quantum scale lets take a single photon
lets say a gamma ray photon with a frequency of 10 ^28. That means it is
composed of 10^28 fundamental quanta each with the energy h.



So on a comparative level the single quanta would be like the volume of a
tiny droplet of water and the single gamma ray photon equivalent to the
volume of all the water on the planet Earth - so now we are talking quntum
physics small small small.





Now if we assume for, now that E= mc^2 is correct, then if our minimum
quantum of energy is h then the minumum energy h = mc^2, and by definition
the 

minimum mass quantum(mq) is mq=h/c^2.



So waht is the mminumum momentum p of the minimum photon with a single
quantum with a velocity c.



Well p = mv = h/c^2 x c = h/c





So the momentum of your photon is p = hn/c or if you prefer to stick with
convention hf/c.





Al of this and the rest of quantum physics is readily understandable





See





https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271959433_Everything_is_Physics_Boo
k_1_Understanding_physics_at_the_fundamental_level





Hope this helps 





Andrew

























========================================

Message Received: Jan 29 2017, 09:24 AM

From: "ANDREW WORSLEY" 

To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" , "
phys at a-giese.de" 



Cc: 

Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group; Pilot Wave unnecessary



Hi All,



Agreed there is no pilot wave as such, just a phase wave velocity Vw, as
opposed to group wave velociity (v).



This is an accepted physical quantity, such that phase wave velocity Vw =
c^2/v, and Vw.v =c^2.



It's all, that is quantum mechanics, explained here.





https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271959433_Everything_is_Physics_Boo
k_1_Understanding_physics_at_the_fundamental_level





Andrew









========================================

Message Received: Jan 24 2017, 11:21 PM

From: "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" 

To: "  phys at a-giese.de" 

, "Nature of Light and Particles -

General Discussion" 

Cc: 

Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group; Pilot Wave unnecessary



Hi Albrecht: Greetings,



All of our thoughts and models are evolving. Nobody has a definite model, as
yet, at least not me.



However, I strongly disagree with the de Broglie "Pilot Wave" concept. It
demands extra unnecessary complexities. If this model is to be a REAL
physical one, 

then we would need a separate physical pilot wave, guiding the physical
"particle". Built out of what? This pilot wave expands with time making the
localization of 

the particle impossible after a very long time!



In the tension filed oscillating model, only the tension filed is the
physical field; the localized oscillation represent the physical particle,
emergent as a complex 

excited state of the field. The oscillator does not expand its shape with
time. Otherwise free electrons and protons could not have been tracked in
long-path 

accelerators. Indeterminacy is limited only by our limited capability to
assign the right initial conditions, as in the LHC or in other accelerators.
Nature does not 

suffer from "Uncertainty Principle", like human math does!



The grand MISTAKE of old times was the assumption that, exp[iwt] =
exp[i2.pi.ft] = exp.[i2.pi.(E/h)t], as in Schrodinger's equation, was
thought to represent a 

"plane wave"! Unfortunately, the expression represents any harmonic
oscillator - it could be a pendulum, or an LCR circuit, and hence it can
also represent a 

localized a harmonic oscillator of a tension filed, albeit complex in
spatial structure. This is a conceptually simpler model without the need for
any well-trained 

"Pilot", while keeping Schrodinger very happy since "f" is the internal
harmonic frequency of the new "model" particle! De Broglie would also have
been happy 

with 

this model since he also struggled for the rest of his life to make it more
realistic! We do have a more realistic concept; albeit, not the final,
detailed model.



Chandra.



From: General [

mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:34 PM

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 

Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group



Hi Chip, hi all,



regarding the ongoing confusion about the "wave structure" of particles I
would like to remind you all of the approach of Louis de Broglie to this
problem. In his 

view a particle is a bullet surrounded by a "pilot wave" which accompanies
this bullet and guides it. - This approach was once strictly rejected by
Heisenberg. But 

John Bell writes in his famous book "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum
Mechanics" that he has investigated the discussion about the pilot wave and
that 

he did not find any serious physical counter-arguments to it. According to
him, Heisenberg's activities against it were nothing else but bashing of de
Broglie.



I like this approach of de Broglie. I like it particularly because it fits
seamlessly into my model of two orbiting massless sub-particles.



Albrecht





Am 24.01.2017 um 12:35 schrieb Chip Akins:

Hi Chandra



Yes. Momentum is measured as you indicated.



But if the electron is a circulating "wave structure", and has the property
of inertial mass, then momentum is likely an inherent part of the "wave"
itself.



As we have discovered, the inherent momentum of the confined wave can cause
the property if inertial mass, which further clearly illustrates why E=mc^2.



But since space is massless, there must be a mechanism which creates
momentum for these waves, which is different from the way longitudinal
momentum is 

carried by a wave in a material medium made of particles of mass.



This more fundamental form of momentum must be created without using mass,
since no mass is present in "empty" space.



So if this is how things work then we may have the most fundamental form of
energy = differential displacement of space.

And now perhaps we have the most fundamental form of momentum = delta Fc
sine(theta) t = E/c.

If this is true then delta Fc/Fc = pi, simply because that is the only form
which yields the correct momentum of such a wave.



Chip



From: General [

mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 1:10 PM

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 

Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group



Chip: I like your thinking approach.

Measurable "momentum" arises through energy exchange between scattering
entities; specifically, when one of the entity possess the "inertial
property", 

we call particles. And, Newton correctly postulated that they tend to stay
"inertial", "until acted upon by a force" (an entity that can "donate"
energy to create 

kinetic motion).

Chandra.



From: General [

mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 9:28 AM

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'

Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group



Hi Dr. Grahame Blackwell



What I was considering is trying to understand the mechanism for momentum in
the propagation of energy in space. Whether that energy is in the form of
light or 

confined in particles of matter. For if we can show exactly how it is that
momentum is a fundamental feature of energy, as it moves in space, we then
have 

specifically identified and understood the source for inertial mass.



This may help us refine our models. I think that it will help us understand
Planck's quantization of action and its causes as well. This research has
already 

helped me understand how light can have both spin and orbital angular
momentum, and it may well lead to a better grasp of other basic principles.



Other reasons for looking into this in detail, are to better understand the
correct set of wave equations, and spin. To understand the causes for what
we 

observe.



I agree that a transfer of energy must implicitly also transfer momentum.
Momentum is a measureable result of energy.

But to me E=hf means that more energetic waves or particles are smaller. If
that is correct then there is a cause. Probably the simplest explanation is
that space 

has an inherent opposition to displacement, which creates this force Fc I
have been discussing. That is nice, simply because this force is also
perfectly suited to 

cause confinement, not only of waves in space, but also of elementary
fermions.



So if we can explore this possibility further, and create wave equations for
waves which would be caused by the displacement and this opposing force,
complete 

with momentum and all the other measurables, then we may have foundations
upon which we can model everything.



I do not think that wave interference is sufficient to cause confinement. I
have studied waves in great detail and still find that more than
self-interference is 

required for confinement of waves into soliton (circularly or spherically
confined) solutions. So for me, it seems that this equal and opposite
reaction of space to 

the displacement caused by energy is the only logical path to explore.



It is my hope (and intuition) that this path will lead to understanding the
mass formation thresholds for electrons so that we might know why the
electron's rest 

mass is the specific value we measure.





Chip



From: General [

mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell

Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 5:40 PM

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' >

Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group



Hi Chip,



I got a working copy, thanks.



I see that of course you're going into far more intricate details
mathematically than I was looking at. In this case, it seems to me, the
question becomes: "How is 

it that a photon travels through space?". As I've said, once that's tied
down the fact that it carries momentum follows as a natural consequence.

(To some extent it depends on how one defines momentum.)



Thanks again,

Grahame

----- Original Message -----

From: Chip Akins

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'

Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:54 PM

Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group



Once more.



Chip













_______________________________________________



If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at 
phys at a-giese.de



> 



Click here to unsubscribe













_______________________________________________

If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at 
member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk



Click here to unsubscribe







_______________________________________________

If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at 
chipakins at gmail.com


http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">

Click here to unsubscribe







More information about the General mailing list