[General] FW: Photon & Electron nature, a vortex Electron Model

Tue Jun 6 11:08:02 PDT 2017

Hello Everyone,

Please find below some correspondence between an old colleague of mine at CERN and myself during today. Some of you I have already sent this to, so apologies if you get it twice.

Regards, John W.

Hi again Thanassis,

Once again- so good to hear from you out of the blue. Delighted that you got to be director of your national lab. Good for you!

I have just re-read your article in more detail. I think there is a very large overlap where your model and that of Martin van der Mark and myself fit together seamlessly. Your article has got me thinking and has proven inspirational. It is SO good to to have input from another direction, because many things come up one has not thought of. Thank you for getting in touch.

I am in complete agreement that the base structure of particles is essentially vorticial. Also, the vortex generates charge, and the conservation of charge is then related to the conservation of angular momentum.

One thing you must look at on this, if you have not already done so, is Martin and my earlier paper with a model of the electron internal structure as a localized photon, where the electron charge is calculated from Plank’s constant (or vice versa).

Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?<http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf>
www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf

 At the time we also imagined the external field as following something like a lituus spiral (though I am not sure the mathematical form is precisely the same and will need checking –this seems likely if the fermat and lituus spiral are conformal inversions of each other – but they may be transformed in space-space to conform with the limitations of the speed of light – this restriction is not there in momentum space as momentum can be increased without limit – more on that below). We envisaged a resonant lightspeed cavity with a characteristic frequency related to the Compton frequency within it. At some radius we called the rotation horizon, the limitation of lightspeed means the effective frequency must reduce and the direction bend, till the external structure becomes roughly radial, as you say and illustrate.

Practically, what it means is that your structure deals with that which happens outside our rotation horizon, where space-space is the proper projection, our model deals with space inside it where momentum is the proper precisely defined variable and position is infinite in that it exists round a circle. For us, it is within this space that there is a cavity. In the conformal inversion, that cavity is also external.

As is usual there are some areas you worry about where we can just provide the answers. One of these is on the Casimir effect.Martin and I talked to Casimir a lot about the possibility of using it for confinement. I have also been close to experiments on it. Briefly, you will find that it parallels the van der Wals force, which, if you think about it, describe the same physical effect with different boundary conditions. We need to talk about this at some point. It is probably not what you need for confinement though.

Another thing you do not need to worry about is the axial v radial symmetry. You have a degree of freedom you have not used. Just let it rotate about either of the axes in Fig 1, one now has a 3D lituus pattern. Ok you have extra inertial forces from the rotation, but confinement is a problem anyway, as you point out. My new theory allows a fix for that as forces arise from the interplay of root mass with field. These are easily big enough.

There are others areas where you should worry, I think, and I can see you already do. One of these is on the electron structure. You are quite right to bring in the contrast between point and point-like, but do not go far enough I think. Before I worked on the AFS I was with the EMC (European Muon Collaboration), looking at deep inelastic lepton scattering. Your model of circulation at a radius in space should show up an electron structure if the radius is in space space, which should have been easy to resolve down to the classical electron radius (we went to 10-18m ish). There is nothing there as far as I know. It is , luckily, fairly easy to resolve this: in solid state physics (where I have worked for many years after I left HEP), it is very usual to work both in space space and momentum space). Partly, because of  the uncertainty relation, these are related though a kind of inversion, similar to that which you use for the transformation of lituus to fermat. Further, the inversion of a (slice through a) sphere is a (slice through a) torus and vice versa. Just put your vortex and cavity in inverse toroidal space. This also fixes immediately the hairy ball problem: tori are combable where spheres are not. That is a very nice place to be if you go on from there.

I really like your conjecture on the neutrino!, by the way. Maybe: maybe indeed! It will be so nice if the neutrino is is just a kind of inversion. You are absolutely right about the conservation of vorticity in weak decay and this necessitating a neutrino-like object. What a good way to put it!

I think we may surprise ourselves in that you and I could easily (within a week say!) collaborate on putting together a model based on my new theory, which dealt with a lot of the problems you have raised – including the confinement.

Even more fun, potentially: I made up a daft model for quarks and generations while I was still with the AFS. I’m not entirely sure, but I think it may be possible to incorporate that as well. It involves a back and forth structure, a bit like that at the core of your figure 3.  It may prove possible, going on from that, to make a model that had the generations, the charged leptons and the neutrinos, the W and Z .. the whole basis of the standard model with input of only space, time and root energy. This would help me a lot as I’m getting a bit of grief from the HEP theory community who see my new theory as a threat, rather than an asset. It would be nice to go in with the good guys in the field and sort some of this out. Martin should be in on this too – he is great free-thinker and is also descended from a long line of knights. You up for it at some point?

Gotta go soon though – I have been here at work since the early morning but have to come up with a plan to justify my existence by the day after tomorrow or they are going to fire me for not being research active!

I am going to copy this to the group I sent it to before, and to another, very mixed group some of whom were on the other list, and some others of whom may find it interesting. I will attach a copy of your article on that email as well.

One other thing for everyone: I have been meaning to arrange an informal mini conference on particle vortex models on the cheap. I have had so little time to do this, and have no funding for it. If anyone on the wider list has ideas, funding, a good venue in Europe, chip in! My best thought so far is to call it and host it, but to get everyone who comes to self-fund.  . I can organize a venue, a party and Scottish dancing . We (Martin and I) have organized such conferences before (the quantum bicycle workshops, but with smallish numbers of people. We have always had a lot of fun though, an they have always proven a great success. It would be nice to have a small pot of money to bring in folk who would have difficulty paying for it themselves though, if anyone has a useful grant, interested employer, or a rich grandmother physicist interested in contributing please let me know.

Anyway, Thannasis and everyone, take care,

Warm regards,

John.

Other quick article links for reference:

On the nature of the photon and the electron - University of Glasgow<http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf>

eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf

Absolute Relativity in Classical Electromagnetism: the Quantisation of ...<http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110966/>
eprints.gla.ac.uk/110966/

Warning, one of the articles contains a (pretty unimportant) sign error, but there are also some signs I think may be in error arising from the conventional handednesses assigned to electric field and to angular momentum. These are being investigated in current work.
________________________________
From: Athanasios Markou [Athanasios.Markou at cern.ch]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:58 PM
To: John Williamson
Subject: RE: Photon & Electron nature, a vortex Electron Model

Hello John,

Thank you very much for your enthusiastic reply !  It was a real pleasure to read it.
Thank you also for copying the answer to interested people, it is not so easy to reach
open minded people, as you know.
The opening prospects of collaborating with you are very good news indeed !.

with very warm regards
Thanassis

________________________________
From: John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
Sent: 06 June 2017 10:25
To: Athanasios Markou
Cc: chrysoula at lpthe.jussieu.fr; Philip Butler; Mayank Drolia; Darren Eggenschwiler; Solomon Freer; Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]; Nick Green; Niels Gresnigt; Stephen Leary; Mike Mobley; Innes Morrison; prof. Ing. Pavel Ošmera, CSc.; Joakim Pettersson; Vivian Robinson; Mark, Martin van der; Jonathan Weaver; Michael Wright; John Duffield; Pete Delaney
Subject: RE: Photon & Electron nature, a vortex Electron Model

Hello Thanassis,

I remember you well!  How good to hear from you! What a pleasure! The AFS - what a tremendous group that was.

Fantastic that you are looking at this sort of thing as well. Just read your article. "Interested" isn't the word. I have been banging the desk going - Yes Yes yes. Good for you. You have things in there from another perspective. You are so right about confinement. I am working on an extension of both Maxwell theory and Dirac RQM that puts in forces and provides the kind of confinement that is needed.  Martin and I have considered the Lituus vortex implicitly in our thinking, but i did not even know there was a name for it until your email this morning. You are so right that the electron is, in some sense, "empty" at its core. I would put the vortex, not as a vortex in ordinary space but as a vortex in "field" space though.

We have a whole international group working on these kinds of things as well. Also I came across Olga Botner's work recently while looking at high energy cosmic events (she now heads a group on this). Have had contacts with Vincent Hedberg and Borge Svane Nielsen as well, though not so recently as I would like. We should start a retired AFS folk group. I am not retired yet but will be soon. We always could change the world working together. Still so much to do!

If we already have 25 common publications it should not be too far-fetched to get on with a 26th.

I will copy this to a few other folk who will be interested as well, hope you do not mind.

With very warm regards, John.
________________________________
From: Athanasios Markou [Athanasios.Markou at cern.ch]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 6:53 AM
To: John Williamson
Cc: chrysoula at lpthe.jussieu.fr
Subject: Photon & Electron nature, a vortex Electron Model

Dear Colleague John,

Our paths met at the beginning of our careers at CERN  (we have 25 common publications
with the Axial Field Spectrometer Collaboration), and the paths seem to meet again !  (to some extent).
With  great interest I am reading your article "The nature of the photon and the electron".
You might also be interested in my "related" article (attached). Could the  Lituus vortices proposed with this essay, result from your new theory of the Maxwell electromagnetism ?
Perhaps needless to say, I am very much interested  to try to further developing it, eventually in collaboration with other colleagues.

My essay is of course not a rigorous work, but it is a novel effort to approach the still existing enigma of particle generations in elementary particle Physics.
Below I try to give the salient points and a prediction of the model :

1. The model tries to attribute specific structures to all  leptons as well as to the massive
gauge bosons (as a model for the leptons should do I argue, since the W's are present in
the heavier lepton decays).

2. Neutrinos turn out to be Dirac particles in this model. It may be worth of noting, that the model was publisized at a time when there was some experimental evidence, for  the existence of the neutrinoless double beta decay
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920563205005074  ,
suggesting that neutrinos were Majorana particles.
More recent experiments seem  not to confirm that evidence though
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217732314300018

with my best regards
Athanasios (Thanassis) Markou
(now in retirement, but still with some activity in Particle Phenomenology)
http://inspirehep.net/record/1485242?ln=el
http://inspirehep.net/record/808603?ln=el

http://www.inp.demokritos.gr/web2/?page_id=406&page=3&user=Markou-Athanasios

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170606/e0488066/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ElectronModel_AMarkou.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 341328 bytes
Desc: ElectronModel_AMarkou.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170606/e0488066/attachment.pdf>