[General] Superluminal electron model
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Thu Jul 5 07:26:13 PDT 2018
Hello Richard,
thank you for your answer.
Perhaps it would be better not to discuss competing models but to refer
to fundamental physical laws and to discuss open questions which should
be solved.
One of the constraints which I have used is the relativistic dilation.
If we do not follow Einstein's mystification of space and time but look
for a physical cause, it is a known and accepted (by many) fact that the
assumption of a permanent motion at c on the lowest level of matter
explains dilation. This way, however, excludes superluminal speed on the
lowest level of matter.
Then the basic rule of reductionism is to deduce known and observed
physical phenomena from a lower level, which is built by more basic and
simple elements. This excludes in my understanding a photon as a basic
constituent of an elementary particle, because the photon has (at least)
the same complexity as for instance an electron. Both have a spin which
points to an internal structure. If we see that an electron has an
internal structure and also the photon has an internal structure, we
should find more basic elements which are candidates to contribute to
the structure of both, the photon and the electron.
Another important task is in my view to find a physical explanation for
those physical quantities and notions, which by the confession of
quantum mechanics are "non-understandable by the human brain". That
means as example: How is the spin physically caused, how is the magnetic
moment physically caused, how is inertia (i.e. momentum and mass)
physically caused.
It is in my view a good and important goal to find the physical causes
for these phenomena. That means for instance to create a model which is
able to explain these phenomena quantitatively without use of physical
statements which are nothing better than postulates.
Could you agree that this is a good goal?
Albrecht
Am 05.07.2018 um 00:26 schrieb richgauthier at gmail.com:
> Hello Albrecht,
> Thank you for your continuing efforts to convince us about your
> electron model. Persistence is a good thing, up to a point. You never
> know when your model might be proved correct. The superluminal
> double-helix photon model and its associated superluminal single-helix
> electron model are definitely not as simple as your electron model
> consisting of two mutually-circulating massless particles. But
> Einstein once said that a theory should be as simple as possible, but
> not simpler. I don’t believe you’ve ever shown how your electron model
> (and an associated positron model) could arise from a single photon in
> electron-positron pair production. And as far as I recall, you don’t
> have a photon model consistent with your electron model. So I’m far
> from convinced that your approach is the correct one.
> Richard
>
>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 3:12 AM, Albrecht Giese <phys at a-giese.de
>> <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>
>> 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 atphys 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>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>> <x-msg://93/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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">
>> 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/20180705/322e68b3/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list