[General] Superluminal electron model

Tue Jul 3 03:12:25 PDT 2018

Hello Richard,

I also want to give a short comment to your description, even though you 
already know most of my position about it.

Your electron model has superluminal sub-parts in it. This is a big 
challenge to all what we believe in physics. You have asked whether 
Einstein made statements about speed limitations of any motion inside a 
particle. This latter point can to my knowledge easily be answered. 
Einstein's opinion was that the limitation to c is a property of 
space-time as he understood it. So, Einstein would to my knowledge not 
accept any superluminal speed inside an electron.

But why so special? I have shown here an electron model (which also 
functions as a general particle model) which does not need superluminal 
speed. On the contrary, in this model the internal speed is constantly 
c; which explains the relativistic dilation in a physical way (i.e. no 
need to assume specifics about space, time, or space-time). This model 
also explains the magnetic moment very precisely in a classical way, 
also the constancy of spin for all particles. And it explains inertia in 
a classical way, also with very precise results, additionally covering 
the relativistic behaviour of mass and mass-energy.

So, my question:why so complicated? The simple model has all what we need.

Best
Albrecht

Am 01.07.2018 um 01:05 schrieb richgauthier at gmail.com:
> Hello David, John and all,
>
>    I’ve uploaded the internally superluminal electron model’s 
> equations to 
> https://www.academia.edu/36949016/Is_the_electron_a_superluminal_half-photon_with_toroidal_topology for 
> your future reference. I think the title is kind of “catchy”, while 
> acknowledging two pioneers in the field. The double-helix photon model 
> is at 
> https://www.academia.edu/36771264/Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant_Has_Inertial_Mass_M_E_c_2 . 
> I think of the double-helix photon model and the electron model as a 
> kind of package of models which I hope will be self-consistent, 
> presumably like John’s models of the electron and the photon in his 
> new paper.
>
>    Dirac insisted in his Nobel Prize lecture that electrons really 
> travel at c (the eigenvalues for electron velocity come out +c and -c 
> from the Dirac equation) but apparently travel at less than c due to 
> their small amplitude and high frequency of internal vibration (at the 
> zitterbewegung frequency f=2mc^2/h). But I wonder if anyone really 
> believed him. Though the double-helix photon model is internally 
> superluminal, it travels longitudinally at c, and its calculated 
> inertial mass E/c^2 also travels forward at c. No problems with 
> faster-than-light here. The photon model's invariant mass is zero, 
> like the actual photon’s invariant mass.) The electron model, though 
> internally superluminal, travels forward (longitudinally) always with 
> an average velocity less than c.
>
>    So  the superluminality of an energy quantum composing a particle 
> may not be such a problem as some make it out to be. I don’t know that 
> Einstein ever put any “restrictions” on theoretical internal 
> velocities within a moving particle, whether a photon or a particle 
> with mass. The unwillingness of Lorentz and other physicists to 
> explain an electron’s spin and magnetic moment by internal 
> faster-than-light motion because of Einstein’s restriction, caused 
> leading physicists to finally say that an electron is point like and 
> its spin is “intrinsic”, ie unexplainable.
>
>       Richard
>
>> On Jun 29, 2018, at 5:35 AM, richgauthier at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>    Here are the equations for the superluminal half-photon electron 
>> model. I am using the program Graphing Calculator at 
>> https://www.pacifict.com <https://www.pacifict.com/> to graph them.
>> Clearly the equations themselves are not copyrighted. Oreste, what do 
>> you think?
>> Richard
>>
>> <PastedGraphic-3.tiff>
>>
>>> On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:08 PM, John Williamson 
>>> <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk 
>>> <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here you go David, a few answers ...
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *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 ofdavidmathes8 at yahoo.com 
>>> <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>[davidmathes8 at yahoo.com 
>>> <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>]
>>> *Sent:*Thursday, June 28, 2018 3:19 AM
>>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>> *Cc:*Oreste Caroppo; martin Mark van der
>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] Superluminal electron model
>>>
>>> Richard,
>>>
>>> A few questions...
>>>
>>> 0. How many electron models are there now? Is there a diagram or 
>>> mapping showing how all the zitterbewegung models are related?
>>>
>>> Mu: Lots!
>>>
>>> 1. Within your model, does the new electron embody the Majorna 
>>> characteristic that the particle is it's own antiparticle, in 
>>> particular, does it explain how both matter and antimatter are 
>>> within it?
>>>
>>> No - the electron is not, and has never been, its own antiparticle. 
>>> That is the positron.
>>>
>>> 2.  Can the new electron be described using the mathematical 
>>> formalism of Dirac, Majorna and Weyl?
>>>
>>> No, Dirac is strictly (and famously) lightspeed. Hence the 
>>> "zitterbewegung" at all.
>>>
>>> 3.  What is the mechanism for creating a local FTL environment to 
>>> permit FTL photons or quanta?
>>> Superluminal wave velocities within the electron "shell" are 
>>> possible using the definition of
>>> c = SQRT(permittivity * permittivity) by simply decreasing either 
>>> permittivity or permeability...or both.
>>>
>>> NRI papers have been fashionable, but I do not think Richard uses them
>>>
>>> 4.  How does this new electron model - or any other electron model 
>>> for that matter - sustain a shell barrier?
>>>
>>> Why would it need to? If one proposes a shell that is simply another 
>>> thing one has to explain. Electrons are necessarily "boxless" or how 
>>> would they inter-act?
>>> 5. Are the superluminal versions of other electron models? That is, 
>>> how widespread is this conjecture?
>>>
>>> Yes - Superluminal charge though, is, I think this is the major 
>>> weakness of Richards model, as it messes up mass in relativity. Not 
>>> good!
>>>
>>> 6. Does the new electron model  explain charge? That is, is charge 
>>> considered invariant within the "shell"?
>>>
>>> Charge invariance is inconsistent with FTL - as outlined above.
>>>
>>> 7.
>>>
>>> IMHO, this new electron model looks like a Majorna particle. In 
>>> fact, there seems to be a mapping between Dirac, Majorna and Weyl 
>>> (DMW) particles to the ring toroid, horn toroid and the spindle 
>>> toroid. One could take this one step further which would link the 
>>> math of DMW to the geometry of circulating photons or quanta with 
>>> variations including subliminal models and superluminal models. And 
>>> there are various electron models, notably Williamson/van der Mark, 
>>> that address charge.
>>>
>>> 8. Does this model address stochastic electrodynamics where 
>>> Zitterbewegung is explained as an interaction of a classical 
>>> particle? Does this model fit within Collective Electrodynamics 
>>> <https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/collective-electrodynamics> (Carver 
>>> Meade)
>>>
>>> No .. Carver Meade uses lightspeed. Also he starts from Plank's 
>>> constant as a given, an uses this as the starting basis (excellent!) 
>>> for much of the rest of his thesis.
>>>
>>>
>>> 9. Does the new electron model - a zbw model -  have sufficient 
>>> linkage to the confirmed conjectures of Dirac, Majorna and Weyl 
>>> fermions?
>>>
>>> Regards, John.
>>>
>>> While I like the geometric approach based on experimental evidence, 
>>> linking the matrix math of Dirac, Majorna and Weyl particles  to 
>>> zitterbewegung models is essential to wider acceptance.
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>> Most of the time, we use Dirac electrons which up until 2015 were 
>>> the only confirmed prediction. The Weyl fermion was predicted in 
>>> 1929 and confirmed in 2015. The Majorna fermion was predicted 1937 
>>> and confirmed in 2017.
>>>
>>> Notably, zitterbewegung was predicted by Schroedinger in 1930 and 
>>> confirmed using BEC in 2013.
>>>
>>> ref:
>>>
>>> [1006.1718] Dirac, Majorana and Weyl fermions 
>>> <https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1718>
>>>
>>> Condensed-matter physics: Weyl particles discovered (2015) 
>>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/525293e>
>>>
>>> Evidence for a particle that is its own antiparticle (2017)| 
>>> Stanford News 
>>> <https://news.stanford.edu/2017/07/20/evidence-particle-antiparticle/>
>>>
>>> This New Proof of Majorana Fermions Is Going to Be Massive For 
>>> Quantum Devices 
>>> <https://www.sciencealert.com/this-new-proof-of-majorana-fermions-is-going-to-be-massive-for-quantum-devices>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018, 5:50:16 PM PDT,richgauthier at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com><richgauthier at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>  I thought some of you might like to see a new electron model, 
>>> composed of a superluminal spin-1/2 charged half-photon.
>>>
>>> In the stationary electron model the superluminal energy quantum 
>>> moves along the surface of a horn torus, with an internal frequency 
>>> equal to the zitterbewegung frequency f=2mc^2/h. The relativistic 
>>> electron model contracts with increasing gamma. The electron model’s 
>>> closed helix's radius is R=hbar/2mc as in several  electron models.
>>>
>>>  I’ve started writing a short paper about the (new electron) model. 
>>> The working title: “Is the electron a superluminal half-photon with 
>>> toroidal topology?” The electron model is formed from one wavelength 
>>> of the helical trajectory of one of the two half-photons composing a 
>>> double-helix photon energetically capable of producing an 
>>> electron-positron pair in e-p pair production, i.e. with photon 
>>> energy E=2mc^2 and photon frequency equal to the electron’s 
>>> zitterbewegung frequency f=2mc^2/h. The helical radius of this 
>>> half-photon is R = Lcompton/4pi = hbar/2mc. The circulating 
>>> superrluminal particle is actually a point-like particle. The 
>>> resting electron model's energy Eo will be one-half of the 
>>> originating photon’s minimum energy of 2mc^2, and therefore Eo=mc^2.
>>>  Comments or questions?
>>>       Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of 
>>> Light and Particles General Discussion List atdavidmathes8 at yahoo.com 
>>> <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
>>> <a 
>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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 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 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/20180703/8af35da2/attachment.html>