[General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Sun Nov 12 13:53:32 PST 2017
Hi Chip,
thanks for your answer. My question:
Does the electron in the orbit see a magnetic field? I do not know why
it should. If there is only one electron in the orbit it would have a
magnetic field if seen from the outside. But the particle itself cannot
see a magnetic field caused by itself. - We should always be aware of
the fact that a magnetic field is not an independent force but an
apparent force seen if an electrical charge is moving. This is caused by
relativistic effects like the propagation time of the electrical field.
A special case in the hydrogen atom is the ground state of the atom. In
this state the electron does not have an orbital momentum. It moves
forth and back through the nucleus. In this special situation there is
not at all a reason for a magnetic field, even if seen from the outside.
For your calculation another question of mine: What does your factor
alpha mean? Does it have to do with the fine structure constant?
And a comment to the Zitterbewegung, which is often understood as quite
mysterious. The electron has an internal oscillation with speed c. This
oscillation which is common for all elementary particles is the cause of
relativistic dilation. It was already assumed by Lorentz / Poincare
prior to Einstein. But at that time this assumption was not taken as
serious. In 1930 it was re-detected by Schrödinger when he analysed the
relativistic Dirac function. - And this motion has to be a circular
one, otherwise the electron would not have a spin and a magnetic moment.
For the rest of your calculations I need a bit more time to understand
them. It will take some days because I am just on travel. So I kindly
ask you for patience.
Greetings
Albrecht
Am 10.11.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Chip Akins:
> Hi Albrecht
>
> I was recently reviewing the de Broglie hypothesis and comparing that
> to conditions found in the hydrogen atom.
>
> Andre has shown how the force (8.238722E-08) of magnetic and electric
> fields are equal at this particular orbital radius (5.29177E-11m)
>
> But I have not yet understood the magnetic field force vector compared
> to the electric field force vector in this orbit, or exactly how the
> interaction of magnetic and electric field components could quantize
> each of the respective orbitals of the hydrogen atom.
>
> However I did find that there is a wavelength naturally generated by
> the motion of the electron in this orbit which provides for a
> wavelength which is precisely ¼ the de Broglie wavelength for an
> electron at this velocity (α c). If we take the Zitter frequency with
> motion at velocity for the orbital radius plus the electron radius and
> subtract from that the Zitter frequency with motion at velocity for
> the orbital radius minus the electron radius, we obtain a wavelength
> for the difference frequency which is exactly ¼ the de Broglie
> wavelength. I am sure this must have been seen before.
>
> As it turns out one derivation for this wavelength for each orbital
> can also be expressed as:
>
> Where /n/ = 1, 2, 3… and /f_Ze / is the Zitter frequency of the electron.
>
> Of course the de Broglie frequency for this electron would then just
> be. Where /f_Ze / is the Zitter frequency of the electron:
>
> So that the de Broglie wavelength for the quantized orbitals are:
>
> Where /n/ = 1, 2, 3…
>
> Thought this was interesting.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Friday, November 10, 2017 1:52 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>
> Hi Colleagues!
>
> I did not follow all details of the preceding discussion. But I feel
> motivated to comment to two points which came up here again and again.
>
> One point is the de Broglie wave. For this I recommend everyone to
> look into the thesis of de Broglie. It is in original in French, but
> there is a nice translation done by Al Kracklauer *). And I find it
> easily visible that de Broglie's idea of his wave is based on an error.
>
> *) http://aflb.ensmp.fr/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf
>
> De Broglie has meant to have detected the following conflict: Physics
> assumes that there is a permanent oscillation in a particle (like an
> electron) which depends on its (full) energy according to the
> equation: E = h*f , where f is the internal frequency. Question
> was: what happens if the particle is set to motion? Clearly its energy
> increases by the kinetic energy. So the frequency f has to increase.
> On the other hand SR assumes dilation which means that the internal
> frequency has to decrease. This was seen as a logical conflict which
> kept de Broglie (in his own words) busy for some lengthy time. Then in
> his view he found a solution which was the introduction of a new wave,
> just the de Broglie wave.
>
> The problem with de Broglie is that he misunderstood the situation. He
> was right in that the internal oscillation slows down by dilation (if
> seen e.g. from the side). However if the particle interacts with
> another particle being in a different motion state (for instance at
> rest) then this other particle sees a higher frequency caused by the
> Doppler effect. And the Doppler effect is about the inverse square of
> dilation, so the apparent frequency is increased according to the
> energy equation. And there is no problem.
>
> It is not even necessary to refer to the Doppler effect in this case.
> If the Lorentz transformation is properly used then it indicates an
> increase of the frequency rather a decrease. So it encloses already
> the implication of the Doppler effect: The according Lorentz
> transformation says about the speed of proper time: dt' =
> gamma*(dt-vx/c^2 ). So, if in the simple case the interacted particle
> is at rest and so v=0, then because gamma>1 t' will run faster than t
> . No de Broglie wave is needed.
>
> The other point: there are some considerations here about the energy /
> mass of the electron where the energy is always related to the
> electric (or "electromagnetic") properties of the electron. This
> cannot work. Helmut Hönl has in the 1940s attempted to deduce the mass
> of the electron from its electrical energy. The result was too small
> by a factor of about 300. (And this is BTW the relation between the
> strong and the electrical force.) As a consequence of the work of Hönl
> it was concluded that it is impossible to determine the mass of the
> electron classically. Conclusion was that the mass can only be treated
> by quantum mechanics. - However if it is utilized that the strong
> force is stronger by the given factor and the strong force is used for
> the determination of mass then the result is correct. I have done this
> calculation as some of you know using the strong force and the result
> conforms to the measurement with a precision of almost 10^-6 . (My
> talk in San Diego.)
>
> The objection to this determination is normally that the electron is
> not subject to the strong force because it was never observed to react
> with a particle which has the strong force as the dominant one. But
> this is falsified in so far that at the electron ring DESY in Hamburg
> an interaction between electrons and quarks on the basis of the strong
> force was observed around the year 2004. There was then an ad hoc
> explanation introduced for this observation by the assumption of a new
> exchange particle mediating between electrical and strong forces which
> was called "leptoquark". It was then attempted to verify the
> leptoquark at the Tevatron. But without any result. So this looks like
> a clear indication that the electron is also subject to the strong
> force, however with a very small coupling constant.
>
> So, what do you think about this?
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
> Am 10.11.2017 um 15:07 schrieb André Michaud:
>
> Hello John,
>
>
> Ok thanks. Taking this in also.
>
>
> I will develop an opinion as I read your articles and correlate
> your grounding premises with my own angle.
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 04:37:50 +0000, John Williamson wrote:/
>
> Actually André I take it back,
>
> If you look at the post I sent to Chip I've argued that one needs
> to consider five superimposed spaces: space, flow in space,
> electric field, magnetic field and spin, but I am forgetting
> myself and warnings from Carver Mead not to double-count. While
> this is true, these spaces are, indeed coupled by linear
> differential equations: this means that the odd may be taken to
> depend on the even and vice-versa, meaning that only three can be
> dynamically independent. They are all anyway coupled and
> interdependent though the extended theory of 4D space-time, if it
> is indeed the solution to Hilbert's sixth that is.
>
> Regards, John.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
> <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>]
> *Sent:* Friday, November 10, 2017 4:26 AM
> *To:* srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>;
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* Mark, Martin van der
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>
> Hello André,
>
> This is getting more and more interesting! Not promising to look
> at them straight away as I've lots to do today but will save them
> as a treat for later.
>
> I agree that the magnetic field encompasses some aspects of spin
> in that is a kind of "turning thing", but I think one eventually
> needs both!
>
> Regards, John.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*André Michaud [srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 09, 2017 11:10 PM
> *To:* John Williamson; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>
> Hello John,
>
> Just one last comment with regard to what we put on the table.
>
> I just quickly scanned your 3 papers and listened to your talk.
>
> We may effectively have a direct match space-wise, because in the
> trispatial geometry, your magnetic space and your spin space are
> one and the same.
>
> You'll see why when you read about how spin can be related to the
> expansion-regression process of the magnetic component during the
> EM reciprocal swing.
>
> Best Regards
> ---
>
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 13:49:23 -0500, André Michaud wrote:/
>
>
> /On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 17:33:42 +0000, John Williamson wrote:/
>
> Right-ho André, I will go green ...
>
> Ok, I'll go violet (colors getting drowded)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*André Michaud [srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 09, 2017 4:29 PM
> *To:* John Williamson; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>
> Hi John
>
> I'll go red inline for my answers.
>
> /On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 10:26:38 +0000, John Williamson wrote:/
>
> Hello Andre and Grahame,
>
> Sorry Andre, have not looked at the trispatial stuff, have been
> far too busy with the day job for the last few weeks. Sounds
> interesting though. Could you please point me to the references
> again (apologies if you have already given them). I will go blue
> below.
>
> No sweat. I also work a day job so I also indulge when time
> allows. I'll give the links in context below for consistency.
>
> Tough stuff, but all fun huh?
>
> Indeed!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> on behalf of André Michaud [srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 07, 2017 9:24 PM
> *To:* grahame at starweave.com <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>;
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>
> Hi Grahame,
>
> The 3D perspective doesn't rule out at all the de Broglie
> wavelength. Quite the contrary. To my knowledge, the de Broglie
> wavelength is the only way to account for the energy of the
> electron in motion in the 4D space geometry. The reason is that
> the self-staining mutual induction of the electric and magnetic
> fields of the energy making up the invariant rest mass of the
> electron cannot be described in a 4D spacetime geometry. At least,
> it never was.
>
> Yes this can be done now. One needs to build in a (root) rest mass
> to the basis of the field (Maxwell) equations. There is an example
> of this in my my two 2015 SPIE papers, though there is a flaw in
> the underlying handedness of one of the fields in that theory, the
> basic method is still valid.
>
> It can be described however in the trispatial geometry, and so can
> that of its carrying energy separately, that is the energy that
> causes the electron to move and also accounts for its velocity
> related transverse relativistic mass increment.
>
> This sounds very interesting. There is a sense in which my new
> theory is quadri-spatial. I wonder if there is some common ground
> here? I really need to look at your stuff.
>
> Quite possibly, I have not had a look at your material, but
> obviously we are exploring the same issues.
>
> Indeed, from what you say below these may be EXACTLY the same issues.
>
> What I wrote was that the de Broglie wavelength that combines both
> is not valid in the trispatial geometry, and is replaced by a
> resonance effect between the energy of the invariant rest mass of
> the electron and that of its separately definable carrying energy.
>
> Sounds as though you need a wave defining these two.
>
> Exactly right! And I have no idea of how to go about this, because
> while the wavelength of the rest mass of the electron remains
> fixed at the Compton wavelength value, that of its carrying energy
> varies with velocity while the electron is accelerating, which
> causes the combined resonance volume to vary with increasing
> velocity, so the resonance volume fluctuates as a function of
> time. In the trispatial geometry I tentatively associate
> Zitterbewegung to this resonance effect.
>
> I think you are very close. In my model the Compton frequency is
> fundamental, but double-covering, which givesthe zitterbewegung
> frequency. If you do the relativstic transformations correctly,
> the de Broglie wavelength falls out of this beautifully, as Martin
> first derived in 1991 (or maybe 92 - do you remember Martin?).
> Martn is also working a=on an updated and definitive paper on this
> at the moment.
>
> You are right tough, there is an orthogonal factor involved
> between the electric charges of the carrying energy and that of
> the electron. But unfortunately, I don't know how to explain this
> from the 4D perspective. I don't think it can be.
>
> In my theory the mass and fields go in as an initially neutral
> fluid. Charge is derived as a result of new topological solutions
> allowed by the extended Maxwell equations. The theory is 4D from
> the beginning. Both the de Broglie wavelength and the proper
> transformations of energy-momentum, both for the case of photons
> and material particles may be (are!) derived.
>
> Wow! In the trispatial geometry, what you call a "neutral fluid",
> I identify as fundamental "kinetic energy" as induced in charges
> by the Coulomb force, coupled with the fields concept being seen
> as only sorts of "maps" describing the real territory (the
> behavior of the energy), so there really seems to be common
> grounds between both our angles on these issues. I put this in
> perspective in the long but I think required
> setting-in-perspective at the beginning of the de Broglie
> double-particle photon paper:
>
> As I have said to others - there are good features in the double
> particle picture, but this is seriously challenged by experiment.
> In particular with two particles you immediately need forces to
> conbfine them. these forces and particles would show up in the
> scattering cross sections and they do not. This was a good idea of
> de Broglies, but I fear it is ultimately a dead end as it falls
> foul of a large body of experimental evidence.
>
> In the double-particle picture of the trispatial geometry, there
> is a self-sustaining reciprocating swing between double component
> electric state and single component magnetic state, with the
> recall property being due to the Coulomb Force acting from the
> trispatial junction. This is how the self-maintaining swing is
> explained in the spatial geometry, combined with a property of the
> "substance" kinetic-energy to constantly remain in motion.
>
> I don't think the twin "particles" would show up so much with
> respect to the frontal cross-section, because in the trispatial
> model, the max transverse amplitude of the electric swing is only
> (alpha lambda)/(2 pi), and they cannot really be "particles" in
> the sense of separate quanta such as electrons for example. In
> this geometry, they are part of a single incompressible quantum
> that elastically oscillates.
>
>
> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf
>
> For the related electron and the up and down quarks inner
> structures I also add the links to the two paper that describe the
> related mechanics of their establishment in the trispatial
> geometry if you want to have a look:
>
> The Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces
> Model:
>
> http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf
>
> The Mechanics of Neutron and Proton Creation in the 3-Spaces Model:
>
> http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf
>
> The charges in the trispatial model are a "recall effect" towards
> the trispatial junction, and their intensity is related to the
> distance at which opposite "charges" happen to momentarily be on
> either side of the junction. Stabilized for the electron and
> positron, but varying for the photon. Not explainable in 4D
> geometry, but summarized in the first column of page 6 of this
> other paper in the 3-spaces geometry with summary description of
> the 3-spaces geometry:
>
> This sounds to me as though it has some similarities to my
> concept, not of the electron, but of the quarks as composed of
> underlying electromagnetic like interactions.
>
>
> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf
>
>
> It would indeed be interesting if all of this could be described
> from the more easily dealt with 4D geometry as you seem to have
> been exploring.
>
>
> I know that ideas like "trispatial geometry" and "3-spaces" sound
> overly exotic, but they really are not. Simply an expansion of the
> concept of the magnetic field vs electric field vectorial cross
> product giving the related triply orthogonal electromagnetic
> relation between electric aspect, magnetic aspect, and direction
> of motion of any point of Maxwell's spherically expanding
> electromagnetic wavefront in plane wave treatment, being applied
> to the point source of the wave, which allows the emitted quantum
> to remain localized as it starts moving at c from the point of
> emission, which would explain EM photons' permanent localization.
>
> I agree completely, and two of my "3D space are indeed the three
> of electric and the three of magnetic (properly the six of
> electromagnetic, relativistically of course). My other two are the
> three of mass-current and the three of spin. I also agree about
> the localisation.
>
> We seem to really wading in the same waters then.
>
>
> In short, the de Broglie wavelength in 4D spacetime geometry is a
> valid, but more general representation of the combined resonance
> effect of both the electron energy and its carrying energy in the
> 3-spaces geometry.
>
> As Grahame mentioned, Martin van der Mark derived this
> independently from our rotating photon model in 1991, see the
> comment below.
>
> Would you have a link to this paper by Martin?
>
> This is Martin and my 1997 paper on the localised photon and is
> available here:
>
>
> www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf <http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf>
>
> There is also a talk of mine on there somewhere, with my model for
> the quarks.
>
> The SPIE papers are available under my name on the Glasgow
> university website.
>
>
> eprints.gla.ac.uk/110966/ and
> eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf
>
> Ok, Il have a look at your material and Martin's.
>
> Maybe we should wait until we both have had time to look at the
> others stuff before trying to correlate ideas more closely.
> We are nearing exhaustion of the usable color range.
>
> Best Regards
>
> André
>
> This definitely looks like a quite exciting conversation.
>
> Agreed!
>
> Best Regards
> ---
>
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 19:49:07 -0000, "Dr Grahame Blackwell" wrote:/
>
>
>
> Hi André,
>
> I don'tunderstand why a 3-D perspective rules out de Broglie
> wavelength - it certainly doesn't in my 3-dimensionally based
> scenario. The de Broglie wavelength is the wavelength attributable
> to the energy-flow component of the electron's formative photon
> responsible for particle motion (as identified by Davisson &
> Germer), whilst the Compton wavelength is the wavelength of the
> formative photon in a static electron - which gives the cyclic
> component of the formative photon travelling helically as a moving
> electron. In that moving electron those two components combine as
> sides of a right-angled triangle (Pythag again!) to give the full
> gamma-factored frequency of energy-flow in that moving particle,
> corresponding to the 'relativistically' increased energy content
> of the moving particle. [It's true, of course, that de Broglie
> wavelength never appears as the peak-to-peak length of a wave in
> its own right, only as the 'wavelength' of a component of the full
> photon wave that forms a moving electron.]
>
> Only the cyclic component will be apparent to an observer (or
> instrument) travelling with that electron - the linear component
> is not apparent due to a form of Doppler effect. This is well
> shown in John Williamson & Martin van der Mark's paper 'Is the
> Electron a Toroidal Photon?', in which they refer to these
> components as "time-like" and "space-like". I don't agree with
> their proposal that this explains de Broglie's 'Harmony of the
> Phases' - in my view a time dilation factor seems to have gone
> missing - but the identification of these components as
> collinear-with (de Broglie)and orthogonal-to (Compton) the
> direction of particle motion is very well reasoned and presented.
>
> No this is not so - Martin derived the harmony of phases from this
> independently in around 1991. It was pointed out to us in 1994 by
> Ulrich Enz ( on circulating in Philips a second attempt to publish
> that paper) that the Harmony of phases had first been described by
> de Broglie in his thesis.
>
> This perspective on particle energy-flow can be used to explain
> fully the phenomenon referred to as 'inertial mass' without
> reference to any extraneous bosons or fields, it also provides a
> direct derivation of E = mc^2 without any reference to SR.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*André Michaud <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>
>
> *To:*richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> ;
> general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Sent:*Tuesday, November 07, 2017 3:45 PM
>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] The Entangled Double-Helix
> Superluminal Photon Model
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for the link. I had a quick look, and this brings me to
> clarify why I wrote that there can be no de Broglie wavelength
> from the trispatial geometry perspective because I observe
> that I did not clarify this point.
>
> It is due to the fact that in the trispatial geometry, the
> carrying energy of a moving electron is a full fledged
> electromagnetic "carrier-photon", which possesses its own
> wavelength, which is separate from the Compton wavelength of
> the electron.
>
> In the trispatial geometry, there can be no common de Broglie
> wavelength, but only a state of resonance between both
> wavelengths, whose form and extent of volumes as a function of
> time depends uniquely on the possibly varying energy of the
> carrier photon as the electron progresses in space since the
> wavelength of the energy making up the invariant rest mass of
> the electron is invariant.
>
> This means that to describe electrons in motion from the
> trispatial perspective, the structure of the wave function
> needs to be adapted to account for this. This is something
> beyond my abilities to do, but that you or others would be
> better equipped math wise to do eventually.
>
> Best Regards
> ---
>
>
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 06:25:31 -0800, Richard Gauthier wrote:/
>
> HelloAndréand all,
>
> Thanks you for your detailed comments comparing our
> approaches, which I will come back to. One link to my
> Schroedinger equation article is
> https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation
> <https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schr%C3%B6dinger_Equation>.
> A link to a related article is
> athttps://www.academia.edu/9973842/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength_and_a_New_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics.
> Both articles can also be downloaded
> fromhttps://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research.
>
> An article making an analogy between photons in a cavity and
> electrons in an atom is
> athttps://www.academia.edu/19894441/Photonic_Atoms_Predicted_by_the_Charged_Photon_Model_of_the_Electron.
>
> with warm regards,
>
> Richard
>
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:22 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org
> <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I will try to explain how I correlate my understanding of the
> wave-particle duality with what I perceive your understanding
> is. But it is very difficult to do, because, I understand this
> in the frame of the expanded trispatial geometry, while you
> describe it from the perspective of the 4D space geometry.
>
> Also, from my understanding, there exists only localized
> elementary charged particles in physical reality, and even
> after they stabilize in various electromagnetic equilibrium
> states (nucleons, atoms, molecules, larger bodies), that
> continue interacting individually. Because of this, to me,
> there is no discontinuity between the submicroscopic level,
> the macroscopic level and even with the astronomical level.
>
> From my perspective, when I look at a baseball in my hand and
> think of how it interacts, I see only the bunch of electrons,
> up quarks and down quarks plus their carrying energy that make
> up its mass that interact with the bunch of electrons, up
> quarks and down quarks plus their carrying energy that make up
> the mass of my own body and the Earth.
>
> When you write: "/The question is, what gives the photon its
> individual particle-like nature and also its statistical
> wave-like nature. Since the answer is that "nobody knows", /"
>
> I would qualify the last part as "/Since the answer is that
> "nobody knows *from the 4D space geometry perspective*", /",
> which is exactly what de Broglie ended up concluding.
>
> This is what got me to thinking and end up exploding the three
> ijk orthogonal vectors describing the electromagnetic triply
> orthogonal relation of any point of the Maxwell continuous EM
> wavefront into 3 full fledged orthogonal spaces, to see if
> this could help, and I found that it does.
>
> But from this perspective, particle-like behavior of localized
> elementary particles such as the photon amount only to its
> longitudinal inertia coupled to a frontal cross-section
> related to the extent of the transverse oscillation of its
> electromagnetically oscillating half, and its wave-like
> behavior can only be the full extent of this transverse
> electromagnetic oscillation.
>
> This transverse oscillation amounts to a form of resonance of
> the energy of the photon, and the volume of space visited by
> this resonance is the only thing that can be described by the
> wave function in the trispatial geometry,
> metaphorically speaking, like the wave function can describe
> the volume visited by a resonating (vibrating) guitar string,
> but here the "guitar string" is the energy half quantum that
> electromagnetically oscillates.
>
> What you name its "/statistical wave-like nature/" to me is
> the distribution of its energy density within the volume that
> it resonates in over a given time period.
>
> When you write: " /that the helically-moving charged photon
> (now I would call it a half-photon) composing an electron
> produces a quantum wave/"
>
> This is a description that belong to 4D space. In the 3-spaces
> geometry, this is not possible because the electromagnetic
> oscillation is a reciprocating swing between both states. The
> helical motion of the twin charges you describe however in
> your 4D model is theoretically possible in the trispatial
> geometry, because both charges are free to swivel freely on
> the Y-y/Y-z plane within electrostatic space while the photon
> moves at c in X-space, which is why I think your model is fine
> even from my 3-space perspective. The only difference is that
> in the trispatial geometry, the charges symmetrically piston
> in and out in opposite directions from zero presence to full
> extent at the frequency of the reciprocating swing.
>
> But there is no such thing as a "quantum wave" being produced
> or emitted in the trispatial geometry.
>
> The only possibility for the wave function to apply (to the
> trispaces photon model) is to describe the resonance volume of
> space occupied by the oscillating EM energy while
> reciprocatingly swinging between electric state and magnetic
> state. Nothing is emitted while the photon travels.
>
> Our approaches indeed are not very different as you mention,
> but you would have to really get into the trispatial geometry
> to see how close they are. The major difference rests with the
> integration of the magnetic aspect, a feature that I see no
> possibility to coherently integrate in the too restricted
> frame of 4D space geometry.
>
> Yes I have an electron model based on the trispatial photon
> model. In fact, there is even a clear and seamless mechanics
> of decoupling of a single 1.022 MeV or more photon into a pair
> of electron and positron, but it can make mechanical sense
> only in the trispatial geometry.
>
> Here is a link to the paper describing the decoupling
> mechanics, and also the inner structure of the electron (and
> positron of course), titled "The Mechanics of
> Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces Model":
>
> http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf
>
> There is no such thing in the trispaces geometry as a de
> Broglie wavelength as you conceive, so I cannot comment or
> relate anything to it.
>
> When you write: " /A photon can be "bound" in a wave cavity in
> many possible "resonant states" depending on its wavelength
> just like an electron can be "bound" in an atom in many
> possible orbitals or "resonant states" depending on the
> electron's energy in the atom."/
>
> When I think of a photon interacting, I see it interacting
> with one or many other elementary particles. To me a photon
> interacting with a wave cavity such as you consider, is only
> one photon interacting with a bunch of other individual
> photons or other charged EM particles such as electrons,
> positrons, up quarks and down quarks, so I do not know how to
> correlate this with what you say. In the trispatial geometry,
> free moving photons cannot stabilize into least action
> resonance states within atoms, but they can communicate their
> energy to electrons so captive, which causes them to jump
> farther away from nuclei or even completely escape.
>
> When you say: "/Maybe the electron gives off one or more
> photons while adjusting to a relatively stable resonant energy
> state in the atom./"
>
> When an electron stabilizes in a least action resonance state
> in an atom, only "one" electromagnetic photon can be emitted,
> carrying away the momentum related kinetic energy that the
> electron accumulated while accelerating until stopped in its
> motion as it was being captured. For example, a 13.6 eV photon
> is emitted when an electron is captured by a proton to form a
> hydrogen atom.
>
> But overall, I think we really are looking at the same thing
> from different angles, and seeing practically the same thing,
> but with different color glasses, so to speak.
>
> I'd have a look at your paper "The Charged-Photon Model of the
> Electron Fits the Schrödinger Equation" (article 21)." Can you
> give me a link?
>
> Best Regards
> ---
>
>
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 15:08:43 -0800, Richard Gauthier wrote:/
>
> Hi André,
>
> Thank you for your very helpful comments and questions. The
> reason that in 2002 I switched from a two-particle
> superluminal quantum model of a photon to a one-particle
> superluminal quantum model was that I thought that the lack of
> experimental evidence for two particles in a single photon's
> makeup would decisively defeat this model. Now with a second
> look it seems that my own rejection at that time of
> essentially the same model was premature. But I did learn more
> about electron and photon modeling between then and now.
>
> Referring to point 6 on the question of wave-particle duality,
> as you know, the photon acts like a point particle when it is
> detected individually by a charge-coupled-device (CCD) or
> other methods. But the statistical distribution of photons
> when many photons are detected over an area follows a
> predictable wave-like pattern predicted from the wavelength of
> the photon (which can actually be measured consistently from
> such experiments). The question is, what gives the photon its
> individual particle-like nature and also its statistical
> wave-like nature. Since the answer is that "nobody knows", I
> proposed in my electron model article "Electrons are spin-1/2
> charged photons generating the de Broglie wavelength" at
> https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers (article
> #16) that the helically-moving charged photon (now I would
> call it a half-photon) composing an electron produces a
> quantum wave, and showed mathematically that this quantum wave
> predicts the electron's de Broglie wavelength along the
> longitudinal direction the electron (composed of the
> helically-moving charged photon) is moving. That gave me
> confidence that a photon model (composed of 2 spin-1/2 charged
> photons) would emit similar quantum waves that would have the
> photon model's helical wavelength and frequency of rotation,
> but would also have a wave form and frequency and would act
> like a quantum wave function to provide the necessary
> statistical predictions about detecting photons.
>
> You explain wave-particle duality differently in your photon
> model, as due to transverse electromagnetic oscillations
> within your photon model. Perhaps these two approaches are not
> so different. Do you have an electron model based on your
> tri-space photon model, and if so does your electron model
> generate the de Broglie wavelength?
>
> Also, you said you associate the quantum wave of a photon with
> a resonance volume associated with the photon rather than a
> "wave-being-emitted" from the photon. Again, our approaches
> may not be so different. A photon can be "bound" in a wave
> cavity in many possible "resonant states" depending on its
> wavelength just like an electron can be "bound" in an atom in
> many possible orbitals or "resonant states" depending on the
> electron's energy in the atom. I see the superluminal energy
> quantum composing an electron as something that seeks out
> through its quantum waves the possible resonant states in an
> atom (or positive ion) it meets, based on the electron's
> energy and wavelength, and then establishes itself in an
> energy state (with its corresponding wave function) in the
> atom which is consistent with the electron's energy (and its
> de Broglie wavelength). Maybe the electron gives off one or
> more photons while adjusting to a relatively stable resonant
> energy state in the atom. Something similar could happen when
> a photon enters a cavity where it can settle into a resonance
> state if it has the necessary wavelength. This I think is a
> new way of looking at quantum mechanics and is quite
> tentative. My work connecting the "spin-1/2 charged photon"
> electron model with the Schroedinger equation is at "The
> Charged-Photon Model of the Electron Fits the Schrödinger
> Equation" (article 21).
>
> Richard
>
> On Nov 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org
> <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have been reading your last paper:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320727586_Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Composite_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant
>
> Quite interesting and clearly described. Easy to visualize.
>
> The first point I note is your use of a pair of charges in
> action within the photon structure, which is something I agree
> must be the case. Since light can be polarized by magnetic
> fields, it makes complete sense that charges, which are known
> to react to magnetic fields, must be involved in a localized
> photon and that two of them need be present and interacting,
> since how could a single point-like behaving charge ever be
> polarized?
>
> Referring to basic geometry, a point can have no particular
> orientation in space while two point (charges) physically
> located some distance apart, however close they may be, and
> between which a distance (a line) can be measured, can
> transversally be oriented in any direction on a plane
> perpendicular to the direction of motion, which light
> polarisation seems to involve.
>
> I also agree with your correlating them with the concept of
> two half spin half-photons, which gives the complete photon a
> spin of 1, which is in line with de Broglie's hypothesis.
>
> Since you make them move in a double helical trajectory, they
> are de facto in mutual transverse alignment with respect to
> the direction of motion, which makes your photon polarizable
> in conformity with observation, and is in agreement with the
> known fact that electromagnetic energy involves transverse
> oscillation, contrary to sound in a medium which involves
> longitudinal oscillation of the medium.
>
> You mention that Caroppo (8) has developed a hypothesis along
> the same lines without reference to de Broglie, but I couldn't
> locate it to have a look because no doubt by mishap your (8)
> refers to the Einstein-Pololsky-Rosen paper that fed initiated
> the debate with Bohr (if I recall correctly) and in which I
> couldn't locate Caroppo's name.
>
> Since you make them spiral along the trajectory, their
> slightly internal superluminal spiraling velocities are
> consistent with the fact the photon proper would move at c.
>
> You assign fixed values to both charges, which is consistent
> with the fact that they remain at fixed distances from the
> axis of motion. This is different from my model, in which
> their value varies between a maximum and zero at each cycle.
> In my own model, I see the concept of charge as a form of
> "recall potential", so to speak, that tends to pull the energy
> making up the half-photons towards each other.
>
> As for a quantum wave being generated by the photon, I have an
> entirely different view of how the wave function applies to
> elementary particles. In particular, since in my view, the
> wave function defines a resonance volume first and foremost, I
> do not understand it as being something like a
> "wave-being-emitted" only as a resonance volume within which
> oscillating energy quanta would be contained in resonance
> state either while in translational motion or when stabilized
> in some electromagnetic least action state. So I have no
> comment for this part.
>
> I think your model is consistent with splitting into a pair of
> separately moving electron and positron if it has an energy of
> 1.022 MeV or more, just like my own model.
>
> I agree with your idea of the charges of both half-photons
> being Q and -Q relative to each other, except in mine, their
> intensity cyclically varies. I think your use of the Coulomb
> force to hold them is consistent. In my model, I am still
> fuzzy about what the Coulomb force really is, so I am still in
> search of how it really applies within the structure of my
> model, although I am convinced that it applies.
>
> I have no comment on entanglement.
>
> To your possible criticism No. 1) regarding the superluminal
> velocity. I agree that this is a problem.
>
> You put in the possible criticism list the idea No. 2) the
> photon may be composite.
>
> No possible criticism in this case in my view. If the photon
> was not composite, it simply could not be polarized. If it was
> not composite, it would behave point-like like the electron, a
> structure that has no orientation in space. From my
> perspective, the very fact that it can be polarized by
> magnetic fields is the proof that it is internally composite.
>
> Your possible criticism No. 3) is grounded on Larmor's
> hypothesis, not on physically observed behavior. No new law is
> required. There is no account on record of electrons
> accelerating in straight line that radiate energy while
> accelerating. You need to wiggle them from side to side along
> the trajectory for them to release synchrotron radiation.
> Also, the John Blewett experiments with the GE Betatron in the
> 1940`s showed that electrons on perfectly circular orbits do
> not radiate. Electrons radiate in cyclotron`s storage rings
> only because their trajectories are forced into "approximately
> circular" orbits, not "perfectly circular" orbits.
>
> Your No. 4) is no criticism indeed, It simply is a possibility
> that single high enough energy photons could possibly produce
> muon-antimuon pairs for example. Your photon model is not
> oversimplified. I think it is ok in this respect.
>
> Your No. 5) I would reformulate as follows: "Light "beam"
> (made of individual photos) easily pass through each other.
> You assume that their internal charges would interact with
> each other and disturb their photon trajectories.
>
> If the pair of charges of each photon can be polarized
> transversally, which is what is observed, then what
> interaction they may have with each other will be on the
> transverse plane, mutually affecting only the orientation of
> their mutual polarities, which would not affect their
> trajectories, which is what is observed. Besides, since they
> cross paths each moving at c, the interaction is reduced to a
> barely measurable moment. We know they interact however, as
> proved by the McDonald et. all experiments at SLAC in 1997
> when they mutually destabilized sufficiently for some 1.022
> MeV (or more) photons in one of the beams to convert to
> electron positron pairs.
>
> Your Number 6). I see wave-particle duality of the photon in
> the following manner: Longitudinal point-like behaving
> cross-section during absorption, and transverse
> electromagnetic oscillation (wave-like behavior) during
> motion. To me this is the only meaning of wave-particle duality.
>
> Your Number 7) is interesting. The very structure of the 2
> charges model of your photon model and of mine provide the
> answer. Both charges being rigidly maintained by structure on
> either side of the axis of motion of the photon, they can
> freely swivel on the perpendicular plane from the minutest
> transverse electric or magnetic interaction. This
> characteristic alone is sufficient in my view for entire beams
> of photons to be forced into the same polarity orientation by
> subjecting the beam to any specific electromagnetic constraint
> configuration.
>
> I would add two items to your list of possible criticism
>
> 8) How does the photon maintain its light velocity?
>
> 9) Since photons are supposed to be electromagnetic, how can
> the electric and magnetic fields that they are supposed to be
> associated with be described?
>
> Quite a biteful to chew on! You seem to have addressed most
> issues that need to be analyzed about the photon.
>
> Best Regards
> ---
>
>
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:23:45 -0700, Richard Gauthier wrote:/
>
> Forwarded from Chip
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *"Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>>
>
> *Subject: [General] Relativity*
>
> *Date: *October 31, 2017 at 6:46:19 AM PDT
>
> *To: *"'Nature of Light and Particles - General
> Discussion'" <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>
> *Reply-To: *Nature of Light and Particles - General
> Discussion <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>
> Hi Grahame (and Andre)
>
> A while back, we briefly discussed the idea that SR is not
> “logically self-consistent” even though many conclude that
> it is mathematically self-consistent.
>
> Regarding logical self-consistent issues…
>
> In order to address this point I think we would need to
> take a look at the “landscape” as it relates to “relativity”.
>
> While doing this, if we look at causes, which is to say
> that we use the concept of cause-and-effect as our guiding
> principle, as you have properly stressed, we can come to
> logical conclusions which simply do not agree with SR in
> all details.
>
> So we can take a look at many of the known conditions to
> guide the development of a composite view of the causes
> for “relativity”.
>
> Sound waves travel through a medium. Sound waves exhibit
> the Doppler Effect simply because they travel at a “fixed”
> speed through a “homogeneous” medium, regardless of the
> velocity of the object emitting the waves.
>
> Light also exhibits the Doppler Effect in space.
>
> So there is an indication that some similarities may exist
> between the causes of the Doppler Effect in sound and in
> light.
>
> Einstein stated that “/light is propagated in empty space
> with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of
> the source/”, which is an incomplete statement, logically
> inconsistent, because the/velocity c in empty space/has no
> meaning, unless we use the fixed frame of space, or some
> other reference, as the logical reference for that
> velocity. A velocity simply must be stated in reference to
> something.
>
> Einstein also stated that, “/Absolute uniform motion
> cannot be detected by any means./” Which is indicated by
> experiment as well. So no problem here.
>
> And he then followed with the assertion that “/This is to
> say that the concept of absolute rest and the ether have
> no meaning./” (/Paraphrased/)
>
> This second conclusion is/not/fully logically supported by
> the evidence presented, and is logically inconsistent with
> the assertion that “/light is propagated in empty space
> with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of
> the source/”. There are alternate interpretations of this
> evidence which are more causal and logical than this.
>
> First, our inability to measure something does not
> necessarily make it meaningless. There are a myriad
> examples we can give of things which we cannot directly
> measure, but we have come to accept, because of indirect
> evidence which stipulates their existence.
>
> We can however, from the evidence, reconstruct a set of
> conditions, which is causal, and yields results which
> match observation.
>
> For example, if light is made of “stuff” that propagates
> through a fixed frame of space at c, and if matter is made
> of confined versions of the same “stuff” also propagating
> (in confinement) at c in a fixed frame of space, then we
> would have exactly this set of circumstances. We would not
> be able to detect our motion through space by using an
> apparatus like the Michelson-Morley experiment. Note: This
> approach does not relegate as meaningless anything which
> may in fact be quite important.
>
> But if “/the concept of absolute rest and the ether have
> no meaning.”/Then how do we explain/“light is propagated
> in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of
> the motion of the source”/and the resultant Doppler Effect
> when a moving object emits light?
>
> While I am fully aware of the explanation that EM
> radiation is represented by vector “fields”, and that they
> somehow could propagate through an empty space at a fixed
> velocity justified only by the math. That is a less
> satisfactory answer logically because it does not
> present/physical/cause. This consideration, and the
> Doppler Effect, coupled with the underlying physical cause
> mentioned above, for us not being able to detect our own
> motion through space, yields two logically consistent
> reasons for looking at space as a sort of medium, with a
> “fixed” frame.
>
> Lorentz transformations are a natural result of the
> situation mentioned above regarding the constitution of
> light a matter. These transformations are required under
> the circumstances where light and matter are made of the
> same “stuff” and that stuff moves at the fixed speed c in
> a fixed frame of space. This all occurs in a 3 dimensional
> Euclidian space.
>
> So there is a more logically consistent, causal view, than
> the one proposed by SR.
>
> When we run the math describing the situation where space
> is a medium in which the propagation of disturbances is a
> fixed velocity, and light and matter are made of these
> disturbances, we obtain the set of Lorentz
> transformations, and cause for “relativity” is shown,
> precisely and clearly. This is a logically consistent
> basis, and one which shows cause. In contrast to SR, which
> is a different interpretation of the same starting
> information, but does not show cause, and does not appear
> to be as logically consistent.
>
> Are there ways to present this and related information
> which better illustrates the case from a logical basis?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Chip
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 at
> grahame at starweave.com <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
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/20171112/46132d0d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 716 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171112/46132d0d/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 798 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171112/46132d0d/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 757 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171112/46132d0d/attachment-0002.png>
More information about the General
mailing list