[General] A composite electron?
Richard Gauthier
richgauthier at gmail.com
Thu Oct 26 20:41:55 PDT 2017
Hi John W, Martin, Andrew, Chip, Grahame, Vivian and all,
Here are some further exchanges about the spin-1/2 charge half-photon hypothesis that may interest you.
Richard
Hi André,
I found a more extended discussion by de Broglie of his half-photon idea in the English translation "Matter and Light", published in 1939, available free at https://archive.org/details/matterandlightth000924mbp <https://archive.org/details/matterandlightth000924mbp> on pages 136-142. The French edition of this book was published as "Matiere et Lumiere" in 1937. In this longer discussion he raises the possibility that the two half-photons might be the then-newly-proposed neutrinos. He thought that one neutrino alone would not carry electromagnetism, but two together could.
I'm also looking at "Composite Photon Theory Versus Elementary Photon Theory" by W. A. Perkins 2015 at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.00661.pdf <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.00661.pdf> . He gives two additional de Broglie half-photon references -- references 1 and 2. He also considers the two-neutrino composite approach in more detail.
Hi Richard,
Yes, I am familiar with de Broglie's idea of the two half-photons possibly being neutrinos. At the time, there was still speculation that neutrinos might be neutral charges, hence his connection with the concept of neutrinos.
Hi André,
I'm not sure what you (or de Broglie?) means by "neutral charge". Does it mean uncharged? A neutrino is uncharged in standard physics:
"Neutrinos are similar to the more familiar electron, with one crucial difference: neutrinos do not carry electric charge." http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html <http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html>.
Does your tri-space approach include some kind of force that holds the two half-photons together to form a photon?
Hi Richard,
Yes, as mentioned in my de Broglie double particle hypothesis paper ( https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.php?aid=70373 <https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.php?aid=70373> , on page 3, Section "Internal Coulomb interaction between the Half-photons").
Note that in the 3-spaces model, neutrinos turn out to be simple kinetic energy without charges. See my paper titled ¨The Mechanics of Neutrinos Creation in the 3-Spaces Model¨ (http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue7/A07070108.pdf <http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue7/A07070108.pdf> ).
From my perspective, what "charges" are, signed or not, still remains to be understood. What is obvious to me though is that a pair of them has to be present in the photon, and that they are de facto subject to the "Coulomb interaction", which also still remains to be correctly understood.
I purposefully use the term "interaction" instead of the traditional term "force" when referring here to the Coulomb force, because I have reason to believe that there is some yet to be correctly focused aspects to the definition of the so-called "Coulomb force".
Here is what I specifically think on this issue. Note that what follows is taken out of context of my most recent paper, still in the peer-review stage for an astrophysics journal (I don't know exactly when I will have follow up), and it may be mostly meaningless taken out of context like this, but here it is:
Considerations on the possible origin of the momentum related translational kinetic energy that propels elementary charged particles such as electrons lead to observe that at the submicroscopic level, kinetic energy is induced in these particles exclusively as a function of the distance separating them. It is also well verified that the only known force able to induce kinetic energy in free moving charges is the well known Coulomb force.
Although established more than 200 years ago by C.A. Coulomb, the exhaustively confirmed Coulomb law which is in action between charged particles as a function of the inverse square of the distance separating them seems to have progressively become invisible in the background of the quantum electrodynamics method (QED), even if the Coulomb equation is an integral part of Maxwell's first equation, that is, Gauss' equation for the electric field, from which it can easily be derived.
I find that the Coulomb force is a critically important component of every "virtual photon" in QED, but metaphorically cut into so many little pieces that it now attracts little attention. Metaphorically speaking, QED causes us to pay attention to every individual pixel in a metaphorical 4K screen that would represent the submicroscopic level, but if we mentally pull back sufficiently, its infinitesimally progressive action can be observed again.
From observations made at our macroscopic level, the traditional concept of "force" was historically established by Newton as a mutual action between two massive bodies, in the sense that "when a body exerts a force on a second body, the second body always exerts a force on the first". Newton established this conclusion as his third law of motion, stating that the mutual actions of two massive bodies on each other are always equal.
Considering each of these bodies separately, the force is then defined as being the interaction that changes the momentum of a body as a function of the time that this interaction is applied to it. This led to defining force as the product of the mass of a body by its acceleration, that is, its changing velocity (F=ma); and to define its momentum at any given instant as the product of its mass by its instantaneous velocity (p=mv).
This observed "apparent attraction" as a function of the inverse square of the distance between massive bodies that are not in contact with each other, then resulted in force being directly related to a natural increase in translational momentum of the body, without any immediate need to refer to the simultaneousness of the increase of its translational kinetic energy as a function of the diminishing distance between the bodies involved, which is obtained by multiplying the force by the distance between the bodies at any given moment, since acceleration is represented by the squared momentary velocity divided by the corresponding instantaneous distance (a=v2/r), which results in the total amount of energy momentarily induced in the body at this specific distance to be (E=mv2), a total amount of induced kinetic energy that Leibnitz considered the real effect of application of a force, quantity which incidentally is twice the amount associated with the translational momentum (p), which on its part is traditionally calculated by replacing (v) by (p/m) in the classical kinetic energy equation (K=mv2/2), giving (K= p2/2m).
From the relativistic perspective, the reason for the difference between these two energy measuring methods is that (E=γmov2) also includes the induced energy that converts to the velocity related momentary relativistic mass increment that was transversally measured by Walter Kaufmann when he deflected relativistically moving electrons in a bubble chamber at the turn of the 20th century, and that was established by Paul Marmet as corresponding to the relativistic magnetic mass increment, while (K=γmov2/2) provides only the correct amount of momentum related translational kinetic energy that sustains the velocity of the total relativistic mass, that is, an amount of unidirectional kinetic energy that turns out by structure to correspond to exactly half of the total amount of kinetic energy that must be induced in the electron in excess of its invariant rest mass energy for it to move at the corresponding relativistic velocity.
It must be put in perspective that these definitions, quite useful at our macroscopic level when applied to massive macroscopic bodies, were established before it was discovered that the force in action between charged elementary particles actually induces kinetic energy in these particles due to the fact that they are electrically charged, so in the absence of this information discovered later, the same definitions of force and momentum were applied by default to the Coulomb force as applicable to these elementary massive subcomponents of atoms, without taking into account that besides their mass, they also possess an electrical charge, which is precisely the characteristic related to energy induction in electromagnetism.
The Coulomb force was thus defined in the following manner:
"The force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.".
But deep analysis of the Coulomb force in light of the internal electromagnetic energy structure of the carrying energy amounts induced in charged particles such as electrons and positrons revealed in the trispatial geometry, and of the variation of these amounts as distances vary between charged particles, reveals that the force itself does not directly attract nor repel in the manner that it is currently defined to operate, but that it only adiabatically induces kinetic energy in electrically charged elementary particles, and that it is the unidirectional momentum related component of this adiabatic kinetic energy that vectorially orients itself to cause charged particles to translationally tend to move towards each other in case of opposite signs charges, or away from each other in case of same sign charges, when the particles are not captive in the various stable electromagnetic resonance equilibrium states allowed in atomic structures, states into which this translational motion is hindered even if the momentum related kinetic energy still remains adiabatically induced, as analyzed in my paper on adiabatic processes.
This brings to light that the Coulomb force would not really be a "force of attraction or repulsion" as traditionally defined, but would rather be a "force of adiabatic kinetic energy induction" that would adiabatically and continuously induce kinetic energy in elementary charged particles, whether they are moving or not, and whether their charges are signed or not (which is where it can be seen as also be in action within the double-particle photon structure), which would make this force a "yet-to-be-correctly-understood-active-agent" that would be universally ambient in the background, so to speak, and consequently that it would not need to travel at any velocity to simultaneously act on all existing charged particles in the universe, but would only increase or decrease the amounts of this adiabatically induced kinetic energy in an infinitesimally progressive manner whenever charged particles happen to be in distance varying motion with respect to each other.
Moreover, Marmet's discovery and the observation confirmed by the Kaufmann experiment that half of any carrying energy quantum induced in electrons converts to mass, reveal that not only does the Coulomb force induce the momentum related translational energy of elementary charged particles, it also induces actual mass, made up of the electromagnetically oscillating other half of the induced carrying energy, which gives the EM-oscillating half of any photon quantum the property of omnidirectional inertia (electromagnetic mass).
From this perspective, and given that this carrying kinetic energy needs to be induced in charged particles "before" any related motion can becomes possible, this means that no motion of the charged particles is required for the Coulomb force to adiabatically induce kinetic energy in them as a function of the distance, and that this energy remains induced even if the related velocity is prevented from being expressed when the particles are captive in stationary orbital resonance states, which are states of induced momentum kinetic energy that the classical concept of momentum, thus also of the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian, clearly do not account for since its related translational velocity is then forcibly reduced to zero, or averages out to zero for electrons captive in such axial resonance states.
Also, the currently accepted conception is that the Coulomb force would be in action in the hydrogen atom between the electron and the "proton". This conclusion disregards the fact that the proton is not an elementary charged particle, but a system of elementary charged particles, just like the solar system not a single body, but a system of smaller massive astronomical bodies.
Regrettably, 50 years after that this major discovery was experimentally confirmed at the Stanford linear accelerator in 1968, it seems that few introductory textbooks to particle physics clearly mentions this discovery with proper reference, but instead continue referring to protons and neutrons as being elementary particles, which induces a high level of confusion in the community in this regard.
Obviously, the solar system is a system whose internal structure is defined by planets stabilized on orbits about a central star, and just as obviously since the 1960's, the proton is known to be a system whose internal structure is defined by interacting elementary particles that are charged, massive, scatterable and point-like behaving just like the electron, that were named up quark and down quark, that are electromagnetically stabilized into least action equilibrium resonance states.
So since the Coulomb force can act only between electrically charged particles, it obviously can be interacting only between the charged electron and the charged up and down quarks that are captive inside the proton structure. So these 3 particles are the only stable interacting charged and massive elementary particles that can be identified as the physical building blocks of all atoms in the universe, instead of the three that are still often erroneously referred to as being the three fundamental elementary particles set defining the inner structure of atoms: electron, proton and neutron.
Consequently, from the electromagnetic perspective, the hydrogen atom is not an interacting two-massive-body system as it still is currently considered, but rather a four-charged-electromagnetic-particle system stabilized in least action electromagnetic resonance states.
This would also be true between the two half photons inside an electromagnetic photon.
So, in light of these considerations, a tentatively more precise definition of the Coulomb force could be formulated in the following manner, for example:
"The Coulomb force adiabatically and continuously induces kinetic energy in elementary charged particles as a function of the inverse square of the distance separating them, thus inducing in each charged particle an accompanying energy quantum whose unidirectional half is vectorially oriented so that charged particles tend to close in on each other if they have opposite signs charges, and move away from each other if they have identical sign charges, when not captive in the various resonance states allowed in atoms, and to apply pressure in these vectorial directions when their motion is inhibited by local electromagnetic equilibrium states.".
In the trispatial geometry, both neutral internal charges of electromagnetic photons would logically acquire opposite signs on the Y-y/Y-z plane, but would both appear neutral along the perpendicularly oriented Y-x axis along which they do not travel, the latter neutral state being what we observe from the normal X-space perspective in the case of the photon.
Hope this makes some kind of sense to you. Summarily put, we still do not completely understand the fundamental level, where "charges" exist and where the Coulomb interaction rules.
Best Regards,
André
> On Oct 23, 2017, at 1:02 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello John W., Martin and all,
>
> Here’s another comment from André.
> Richard
>
> I read with interest the email you forwarded of Viv's answer to Grahame.
>
> You mention the fact that John Williamson is strong on the use of Clifford algebras and algebras in general. I suspect that he may possibly find interest in having a look a the trispatial geometry from the Clifford algebra perspective, since it is fundamentally a strictly orthogonal (3x3)+1 entirely orthogonal local space geometry.
>
> The second part of this paper, also peer-reviewed, puts in perspective this trispatial geometry with respect to other attempts at multidimensionality to explain the remaining issues in fundamental physics:
>
> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf <https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf>
>
> I understand the concept of Clifford algebras, but I am at the absolute layman level in this regard, and would really be looking forward to any feedback from a practitioner as to the possible usefulness of what, if any, useful perspective application of Clifford algebra to the trispatial geometry could bring.
>
> I must say that I fully agree with Viv to the need for any development at the fundamental level to be supported by consistent mathematics, that I personally see as requiring the solid foundation of the set of equations on electromagnetism that was developed from experimental data by Ampere, Gauss, Faraday, Maxwell, Biot and Savart, that all are interconnected and thus are converging in a manner that can only confirm their conformity with physical reality.
>
> Best Regards
>
> André
>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 9:17 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello John W, Viviian, Chip, Grahame and all,
>>
>> I invited André Michaud to contribute his thoughts on the two particle photon hypothesis and related topics such as e-p pair creation from a photon. With his permission I’m appending part of our exchange. I’ve invited him to join our group and hope he will accept. He has a highly developed approach to de Broglie's two half-photons hypothesis for a photon, which he calls his trispatial geometry model. Please copy to André any replies to his comments or to this thread on a composite photon. André's peer-reviewed and published article “On De Broglie’s Double-particle Photon Hypothesis" is free to download at https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.php?aid=70373 <https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.php?aid=70373> . Thanks.
>> Richard
>>
>> Our exchange follows:
>>
>> André: I just read your last email to the group. Note that during the McDonald et al. 1997 experiment that converted photons energy to electron positron pairs, there was no massive particle involved to absorb or communicate any momentum. It thus appears that the mere proximal presence of two photons beams, one of which was made of photons exceeding the 1.022 MeV threshold seemed sufficient to trigger destabilization, of what I assume would have been the 1.022 MeV or more photons.
>>
>> Also, the presumption that momentum is communicated during grazing of 1.022 MeV photons by massive particles stems from the logic of QED. It must be taken in consideration that QED, which is in harmony at the general level with Maxwell's equations, is unable, just like electromagnetism in its current state, to account for the self-sustaining mutual induction of electric and magnetic fields for localized elementary particles such as electrons and photons.
>>
>> I put this in perspective because during a conversation with an old experimentalist about 15 years ago, he spoke of experiments confirming that no momentum was transferred between the decoupling single photon and a massive particles, because they could verify that the exact complement of incoming photons of 1.022 MeV or more corresponded to the exact sum of the energy making up the rest masses of both particles plus their momentum energy.
>>
>> At the time, I did not ask for formal references to these experiments, thinking that this was generally known.
>>
>> It may thus be that the notion that momentum is exchanged simply stems from theory.
>>
>> You (Richard) write: "It sounds like the experiment your experimentalist friend told you about also didn't directly measure the recoil of the nucleus, but relied on the principles (laws) of conservation of energy and momentum, applied to the incoming photon compared to the outgoing e-p pair."
>>
>> You are exactly right. And that's what convinced me. Given that they could verify that the sum of the outgoing energies accounted for the total energy of the incoming photon, then the issue of recoil or not of the destabilizing massive particle seemed a moot point. All the more so since that there were no massive particle to absorb any momentum in the case of the McDonald et al. experiment in 1997, where one photon exceeding the 1.022 MeV threshold could be destabilized by simply grazing closely another photon of much lesser energy.
>>
>> What I find important here is that the total energy complement of the incoming photon is completely accounted for.
>>
>> Note in this regard, that all my conclusions are refocused by the fact that this seamlessly fits in with all other conversions processes possible in the rest of the 3-spaces model. This includes the conviction that a single 1.022 MeV or more photon can decouple into a pair, because this is natural and mechanically possible in the trispatial geometry, but I have no idea how two separate photons could interact in such a way that they would convert to a pair of electron-positron. It doesn't seem to be mechanically possible in the trispatial geometry.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 17, 2017, at 12:08 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chip and Grahame,
>>>
>>> Yes, it does take two photons. In fact though they must have the same spin (or helicity. As they are travelling in opposite directions, this then cancels in the spin zero creation of an electron positron pair.
>>>
>>> YT you Grahame for introducing a dose of reality into the argument and asking for references. You are, as far as I know, correct in what you say below.
>>>
>>> If there were two parts to the photon then one would see that as structure in the scattering at energies commensurate with the photon energy. This is not observed. This lack of observation of structure extends even above the electron-positron (and, as far as is known, the muon-antimuon) pair production thresholds, at least if one restricts oneself to spin-zero scattering (spin one has three photons, and hence the complications of interpretation of a three body problem). One needs to access hadronic energy levels before one sees structure corresponding to little hard bits of stuff on some sort of springs (forces between the bits) inside any “elementary” particles. If anyone knows differently, proper references are required.
>>>
>>> Likewise, reversing the process, one does not observe two (or more) bits within the electron (or muon), so any models positing this are, by the scientific method, simply not correct. The "two bit" hypothesis is simply contradicted by experiment. Sorry.
>>>
>>> Likewise, Wolf's earlier comment is apposite, if there are two (or more) bits, they need forces holding them together. If one is going to describe this sort of stuff without just hand-waving you are anyway going to need a theory (with the bits and with the forces between them) that can be subject to test. Theories are things like the Maxwell equations or Newtons laws, with differential equations, Lagrangian theories with contributions to action, A Hamiltonian equation, with contributions to the energy, or tensor equations of space, time and curvature, as in general relativity. This was what was missing in Martin and my original conjecture about the electron nature and why both he and I are investigating possible extensions to theory, I in the set of differential equations posited in 2014 at Marseilles and 2015 at SPIE (and still under development), he in extending the Bateman method in electromagnetism (amongst other things). If we want to get serious we need to move to developing theories testable by experiment, otherwise we could make up and talk about whatever we like.
>>>
>>> This is what makes solving the puzzle so interesting: there is a lot that we know about the things we are trying to describe. Any theories we come up must be consistent with known experimental facts if they are to describe reality as it is observed. Self-evidently.
>>>
>>> Regards, JGW.
>>> 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 Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 12:55 PM
>>> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>>> Subject: Re: [General] Fw: A composite electron?
>>>
>>> Hi Grahame
>>>
>>> I think you are may be correct, in that it may take two photons to make an electron positron pair. It is clear that it would take two photons of .511MeV at least.
>>>
>>> But due to the charge and spin considerations, comparing photons to electrons/positrons, it still seems that one “polarity” of each of the photons is used to form one fermion.
>>>
>>> This seems to be the simplest way to explain both spin and charge of the fermions from a causal basis.
>>>
>>> Chip
>>>
>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:49 PM
>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>> Subject: [General] Fw: A composite electron?
>>>
>>> Hi Chip & All,
>>>
>>> [repeat as my first send doesn't appear to have arrived - apologies if any duplication]
>>>
>>> Can somebody point me in the direction of experimental evidence of a single photon being split into two parts to form an electron-positron pair? I was under the impression that such pair production takes an opposing pair of photons of requisite energy.
>>>
>>> It's my understanding that the history of this discovery goes back to Lev Landau's seminal experiments in 1934 (with his student Evgeny Lifshitz) where he identified the fact that particle collider experiments producing such pairs always hinged on release of high-energy photons that then collided to form those pairs - collisions of photons, in my understanding, always involve more than one photon. In December of that year - presumably based on this finding - Breit & Wheeler defined their well-documented process, which again involves collisions between opposing photons.
>>>
>>> The only practical implementation, to my knowledge, of a process whereby e-/e+ pairs have been produced from photons alone was the SLAC experiment in 1997, where a 'Multiphoton Breit-Wheeler Process' was implemented, successively ramping up the energies of photons in a laser cavity to the point where, after around four collisions, they reached the required energies to form e-/e+ pairs on further collision with bombarding photons.
>>>
>>> Clearly it's possible for a photon to be split - Compton Scattering is a practical illustration in which part of a photon's energy is absorbed by a (pre-existent) material particle to give it momentum and the rest of that photon continues on its way with reduced frequency/energy. However I know of NO situation in which a single photon has been transformed into a particle-antiparticle pair, as is being suggested below.
>>>
>>> [As a point of detail, I find it hard to envisage how linear momentum, angular momentum and energy could all be conserved by such a happening.]
>>>
>>> Those who are happily discussing it as if it's 'de facto', I'd be really glad of your references for same.
>>> If no such (reliable) references exist, I'd suggest that to proceed on the basis that it IS a reality would be questionable, to say the least.
>>>
>>> [For avoidance of doubt: Colliding two opposing photons to thus form two particles is most assuredly NOT "splitting a photon", in my book - though it IS re-apportioning the energies & momenta of those two photons to re-cast them as particles.]
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Grahame
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
>>> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 12:22 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [General] A composite electron?
>>>
>>> Hi Richard
>>>
>>> Exactly! The mere act of splitting a photon (with the requisite energy) causes each “half photon” to confine itself and the half photons become an electron/positron pair.
>>>
>>> Andrew suggested in the SPIE conference we attended, that the electron was half a photon (a rectified photon is what I think he said).
>>>
>>> This is part of the concept I have been trying to convey. The rest of the concept is that space is composed in a way which makes this possible. A two component tension medium. This scenario creates quantized electric charge, as we observe. Creates mass, as we observe. Creates the spin we observe for photon and electron. Makes more energetic particles smaller particles, as we observe. And agrees with experiment regarding the velocity of electric charge, which is much easier to conduct and less ambiguous than the current LIGO findings.
>>>
>>> Regarding LIGO and gravity: Binary pulsars have been studied for some time. Their orbits simply do not deteriorate at the rate they would if gravity propagated at light speed. Many, who firmly believe in the postulate of relativity that nothing can travel faster than c, have attempted to explain this away. But I have found none of these explanations to be plausible (in my opinion). The simplest explanation is the gravity is faster than light.
>>>
>>> That does not mean that it is impossible for two massive bodies to generate a wave which has a phase velocity near or at light speed. That is quite possible, and perhaps even probable.
>>>
>>> But back to the photon and electron. I think you are on the right track with this.
>>>
>>> Chip
>>>
>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
>>> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 11:59 PM
>>> To: Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>>
>>> Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>; Martin Rivas <martin.rivas at ehu.es <mailto:martin.rivas at ehu.es>>; David Hestenes <Hestenes at asu.edu <mailto:Hestenes at asu.edu>>; robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com <mailto:hudginswr at msn.com>>
>>> Subject: Re: [General] A composite electron?
>>>
>>> Hello Andrew and all,
>>>
>>> De Broglie proposed his 2 spin-1/2 particle photon idea (not sure if he also had a model for this) in the early 30’s in his book "La Physique Nouvelle et les Quanta” (available free at archive.org <http://archive.org/>) and in English translation as "The revolution in physics: A non-mathematical survey of quanta <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007G309U/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1>”, available at Amazon.com <http://amazon.com/>. With the help of Google Translate (slightly edited) I give below what de Broglle wrote on this (p. 277-278 in the French edition):
>>>
>>> From these general remarks, we have concluded that, in order to constitute a theory of the photon, we must first use a relativistic form of wave mechanics comprising elements of symmetry due to polarization and, secondly, introduce something to differentiate the photon from the other particles. The first part of this program is realized immediately by using the theory of the electron of Dirac that we studied previously. We know that Dirac's theory is relativistic and that it contains elements of symmetry with a marked kinship with those of the polarization of light. Nevertheless, it was not sufficient to suppose that the photon is a particle of negligible mass obeying the equations of the Dirac theory, for the model of the photon thus obtained would have, so to speak, only half the symmetry of the real photon; moreover, it would, like the electron, apparently obey Fermi statistics and could not be annihilated in the photoelectric effect. We need something more.
>>> This something more, we tried to introduce on the assumption that the photon is constituted not of a Dirac particle, but of two. It can be realized that these two particles or half-photons must be complementary to each other in the same sense as the positive electron is complementary to the negative electron in Dirac’s hole theory. Such a pair of complementary particles is liable to annihilate itself by contact with matter and yielding all its energy, and this perfectly accounts for the chracteristics of the photoelectric effect. Moreover, the photon then being constituted by two elementary particles with spin h/4pi must obey Bose-Einstein statistics, as required by the accuracy of Planck's law for black-body radiation. Finally, this photon model makes it possible to define an electromagnetic field linked to the probability of annihilation of the photon, a field which obeys Maxwell’s equations and possesses all the characteristics of the electromagnetic light wave. Although it is still premature to pronounce definitively on the value of this attempt, it is indisputable that it leads to interesting results and that it heavily draws attention to the properties of symmetry of complementary particles whose existence, suggested by the Dirac theory, was verified by the discovery of the positive electron.
>>>
>>> So what I have called in the past a spin-1/2 charged photon I now think should be called a spin-1/2 charged half-photon, since two of them (one positive and one negative) would move in a double helix to form a spin 1 photon which helps generate electromagnetic waves. This renaming should also solve the semantic problem of the name of this superluminal charged spin-1/2 particle , which I would no longer consider to be a variety of photon, since it would take two of them to make a photon. Such a photon model could easily generate an electron-positron pair when near an atomic nucleus that absorbs excess momentum (creating two rest masses) and splits a sufficiently energetic photon into an e-p pair. Comments?
>>>
>>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Folks,
>>>
>>> The composite electron model has a history of which I was not aware. From mid-right column of page 4 of (free access):
>>> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/ <https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/>the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.php?aid=87682
>>>
>>> Louis de Broglie elaborated a most promising hypothesis to help
>>> explain these special characteristics of the photon [7]. Having analyzed
>>> them in light of the verifed aspects of the various pertaining theories,
>>> he eventually concluded that the only way for an electromagnetic
>>> photon to satisfy at the same time Bose-Einstein's statistic and Planck's
>>> law, and to perfectly explain the photoelectric effect while obeying
>>> Maxwell's equations and conforming to the symmetry property of
>>> complementary corpuscles in Dirac's Hole Theory, would be for it to
>>> be made not of one corpuscle, but of two corpuscles, or half-photons,
>>> that would be complementary, like the electron is complementary to
>>> the positron in Dirac's Hole Theory [15].
>>>
>>> This conclusion mandates the association of charges (possibly
>>> unsigned) to each half-photon, and consequently to the photon itself, ...
>>>
>>>
>>> 7. Michaud A (2016) On De Broglie’s Double-particle Photon Hypothesis. J Phys
>>> Math 7: 153.
>>>
>>> 15. De Broglie L (1937) New physics and quanta, Flammarion, 2nd 1993 new
>>> Preface.
>>>
>>> This would imply that, historically, the Nature of Light is even more curious than most of us thought.
>>>
>>> Andrew M.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Hello Martin (and all),
>>> Thank you for this summary of your CC-CM approach to a moving particle such as an electron. My approach to modeling an electron is quite similar to yours, except that in my approach the CC (center of charge) is the position of a light-speed spin-1/2 charged quantum particle that I call a choton. It is in circular motion in a resting electron and moves helically in a moving electron. The linear momentum of the choton in a resting electron is Po=mc=2.73x10^-22 kg m/s = 0.511 MeV/c (and its energy is mc^2= 0.511 MeV) and this momentum mc circles with radius Ro= L-compton/4pi = hbar/2mc = 1.93x10^-13m at the zitterbewegung frequency f-zitt=2mc^2/h. The choton’s average position as the choton circles around is what you call the CM (center of mass). In a resting electron the choton (at the position CC) and the CM are separated by the distance Ro, with the choton circling around its CM at the zitter frequency. Due to its circular motion with its changing momentum direction, the choton appears to be acted on by a centripetal force Fc=dp/dt = w Po = w-zitt Po = 0.424 N , where w-zitt (omega-zitt) = 2 mc^2/hbar = 1.55 x 10^21 rad/sec. The choton’s centripetal acceleration A-cent in this circular motion in a resting electron is A-cent = r w^2 = Ro (w-zitt)^2 = 4.66x10^29 m/s^2. My article “Derivation of the inertial mass m=Eo/c^2 of an electron composed of a circling spin-1/2 charge photon” at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers <https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research%23papers> (4th article) also shows that the above circling choton (spin-1/2 charged photon) has an inertial mass m = Eo/c^2 = 0.511MeV/c^2 derived from its circling momentum mc=Eo/c.
>>> When no external force (besides the apparent 0.424 N central force) acts on the choton, the moving electron model moves longitudinally with velocity v and with momentum p=gamma mv. The choton circulates with its longitudinal momentum component P-long = gamma mv, which is the electron’s linear momentum, and with a transverse momentum component P-trans = Po = mc. Using the Pythagorean equation, this gives the choton’s total momentum directed along its helical trajectory as P-total^2 = P-long^2 + P-trans^2 = (gamma mv)^2 + (mc)^2 = (gamma mc)^2, or P-total = gamma mc. The choton’s corresponding total energy is E-total = P-total c = gamma mc^2, which is the same as a relativistic electron’s total energy.
>>> When an external electric field E acts on the circulating choton, the choton (with its inertial mass m=0.511 MeV/c^2) is accelerated by a net force Fnet equal to the rapidly rotating centripetal force Fc= 0.424 N plus the external force F=-eE. The total force on the choton is Fnet = Fc + eE = m a-total in the non-relativistic case or Fnet = dp-total/dt in the relativistic case. The choton’s helical motion (the motion of the CC) will be changed by the external electric field E acting on the choton, and the choton’s CM (average position) will be affected accordingly, and move in the direction of the applied external force E.
>>>
>>> There are also quantum mechanical features of the above motion. As the choton changes its helical trajectory due to the applied electric field E, the choton’s transverse momentum component P-trans = mc adjusts its orientation so that P-trans continues to be transverse to the choton’s new longitudinal motion with its new longitudinal component velocity v’ (the new electron velocity). In this way the calculated spin of the choton electron model continues to be Ro x Po = hbar/2 and the Pythogorean momentum relation continues to be P-total^2 = P-long^2 + P-trans^2 (which is mathematically equivalent to the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c4). Further information on the spin-1/2 charged photon model is at “Electron’s are spin 1/2 charged photons generating the de Broglie wavelength” at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers <https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers> (19th article).
>>>
>>> In summary, the choton electron model does not need to be a rigid body to maintain the relation between CC and CM. All forces (including the apparent centripetal force F-cent) act on the choton (at the CC), which has its own inertial mass, producing the choton’s acceleration and average center of mass position CM.
>>>
>>> with warm regards,
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier 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 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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/20171026/886e110c/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list