[General] Superluminal electron model

Fri Jul 6 14:00:58 PDT 2018

I wrote to Andrew Meulenberg the following question: 

I've been wondering what you think of the approach to generating a single-helix model of an electron and a positron from the double-helix photon model. It seems it could explain the zitterbewegung frequency within an electron and also how the electron gets its internal helical radius hbar/2mc from the radius of the photon that produces the electron-positron pair, which is also hbar/2mc.

Andrew replied, and agreed to share his reply to this group:

Dear Richard,
I initially misinterpreted your question; however, I think that I have the sense of your question now. It has two parts. First, what is my view of the double helix photon? Then, if it exists, can a pair of single helix leptons come out of that structure?

1. I had initially rejected the double-helix photon because I thought that it was implying paired unit charges. That could not work for low-E photons. However, I had written a paper (rejected for publication) that indicated charge and mass both go to zero in the process of electron-positron annihilation. (The non-mass energy is 'stored' in the coupled EM field.) If such a transient structure exists, and a photon exists 'outside' of time because it is traveling at 'c', then it might be possible for a low-E photon to have the double-helix structure. This works for circularly-polarized photons with the charges rotating in 3-space. Linearly-polarized photons would need the charges to oscillate in time. One of our most recent SPIE conference papers talks of this oscillation in time as that of an oscillating potential. What is a charge other than an ordered E-field or potential? Since we see evidence of such in the interference pattern of a split laser beam interfering with itself, I can no longer reject the concept of the double helix photon, if the strictures on the definition are loosened somewhat.

2. If the idea of the double-helix photon is able to be generalized to any energy, but fixed angular momentum, the single-helix photon cannot. Thus, there is a uniqueness/resonance about the energies required for leptons (including muons) and pairs. I see no problem with this. The unique spin 1/2 for both parts of a lepton pair is another aspect of such a resonance. However, it may be different from that giving a spin 1 to the photon. The separation of charge (polarization) in an external field, to split the double helix into 2 pieces is a natural consequence of the model. A possible problem with a single helix and single charge is in the lack of binding to maintain a helical motion about some central axis. Distortion of space to produce a charge (OR POTENTIAL) for a restoring force puts us into another model. However, since potential (charge) is relative, there may be the possibility of the double helix splitting into a structure that evolves into a pair of double helices. On the other hand, the attractive force that draws a photon into a massive body could also be the one to keep a single helix propagating. Thus, I suggest that answering the challenges of the single-helix photon might lead to a different model; one that might be a point of convergence for several of the electron models.

Best regards,

Andrew

> On Jul 5, 2018, at 8:46 PM, richgauthier at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Hi John W, David and all,
> 
>    Thanks John for your answers to some of David’s questions about the new superluminal charged-half-photon electron model. I think the new electron model is more like the Dirac electron than the Majorana or Weyl fermion, which seem specialized to possibly being found only in crystals or other materials, and don’t describe free electrons, in my limited understand of Majorana and Weyl fermions.
> 
>      One of the nice features of the new electron model and positron model is that they are quantitatively closely related to the E= 2mc^2 photon that can produce an electron-positron pair. The charge dipole of the double-helix photon model with charge magnitudes +16.6 e and -16.6e , i.e. with charge magnitudes e sqrt (2/alpha),  transforms into the charges of the created electron-positron pair, which are flung away from each other by their linear momenta due to their high-frequency helical rotation when the attractive Coulomb force in the double-helix model is reduced by a factor of alpha/2 =1/274  between the created e-p pair compared to the attractive force of the double-helix charged pair in the photon model. The radius R of the 2mc^2 photon (generating the e-p pair) is Lambda-compton/4pi = hbar/2mc. This is also the helical radius R of each spin-1/2 half-photon in the 2mc^2 photon model and also of the new electron model and the positron model (also in several other electron models.) What is new here is not the new electron model’s helical radius R= Lambda-compton/4pi = hbar/2mc but  the equality of the new electron model’s helical radius hbar/2mc with the 2mc^2 photon's double-helix radius R, which equals the helical radius R=hbar/2mc of each of the two helical half-photons forming the double-helix photon. So there is a nice equality between the 2mc^2 double-helix photon’s wavelength Lambda-compton/2 and radius R and the electron model’s internal zitter wavelength  Lambda-compton/2 and radius R.
> 
>    Another nice (and related) equality is that the 2mc^2 double-helix photon’s frequency is the zitterbewegung frequency f-zitt=2mc^2/h, which is also the zitterbewegung frequency f-zitt=2mc^2/h of the new electron model. The new electron model is composed of a zitterbewegung-wavelength Lambda-compton/2  half-photon making SINGLE LOOPS internal to the photon model, rather than being composed of a single-wavelength Lambda-compton photon (corresponding to the energy hf=hc/Lambda=mc^2 of an electron) which makes a DOUBLE-LOOP within the electron model for each Lambda-compton wavelength. Why doesn’t this circling Zitter-wavelength half-photon in the new electron model have twice the momentum of a circling Lambda-compton wavelength photon? It is because in the new electron model the circling quantum particle of wavelength Lambda-compton/2 IS a half-photon of the E=2mc^2 original photon. Each half-photon carries half the energy and half the momentum of the full 2mc^2 photon, while retaining the 2mc^2 photon’s zitter frequency f-zitt = 2mc^2/h and wavelength Lambda-compton/2.. That is, each circling half-photon (of zitterbewegung wavelength Lambda-compton/2 = 2pi R) composing an electron of helical radius R=Lambda-compton/4pi has the energy mc^2 and momentum mc of a Lambda-compton wavelength photon (of energy mc^2) which is usually used to compose a double-looping-photon electron model. The advantage of this new result in the new electron model is that each time the half-photon of wavelength Lambda-compton/2 makes one circumference within the electron model, it returns IN PHASE with the Lambda-compton/2 wavelength wave from the previous cycle, rather than returning 180-degrees out-of-phase after a single loop, as a Lambda-compton wavelength would return after making the first loop of its double-loop cycle. The 180-degrees out of phase Lambda-compton double-looping photon causes destructive interference with itself within the electron model, which would be fatal for a simple double-looping Lambda-compton-photon electron model.
> 
>     In order to avoid this catastrophe of destructive interference within a double-looping-Lambda-compton-wavelength-photon electron model, the 1997 Williamson/van der Mark electron model has its circulating Lambda-compton-wavelength photon move in a proposed “locally, closed curved space” that only applies to the locally confined photon. The space within their electron model would twist 180 degrees each time their Lambda-compton wavelength circling photon travels one circumference of length Lambda-compton/2 or 180 degrees of its full two-loop cycle.  This would make the electric field E of an electron’s circling Compton-wavelength photon (moving in the twisted space) continually point inward, as it should for the inward-pointing E-field of an electron. This inward-pointing E-field of their circulating photon moving in the twisted space would generate the electric charge of the electron model (the circulating Lambda-compton photon itself not being charged in their model).
> 
>    The new electron model avoids the 1997 model's twisting-space requirement, with the circulating photon's E-field always pointing inward around the loop, since in the new electron model the half-photon of wavelength Lambda-compton/2 always arrives in phase with itself after each circumference Lambda-compton/2  travelled (so there is no destructive interference after one loop even in untwisted space, and so  there is no need for space to twist 180 degrees in each photon loop.) The circling half-photon in the new electron model  is charged with -1e  and so produces its own E-field.
> 
>   One might ask, if the internal wavelength in the new electron model is Lambda-compton/2  corresponding to the zitter frequency 2mc^2/h, instead of Lambda-compton, how does the moving new electron model produce the de Broglie wavelength Lambda-de-broglie = h/p? According to de Broglie, every object of mass m, including the electron, has an internal frequency f given by hf = mc^2 . It is this postulated internal frequency f=mc^2/h of an electron (which is half the zitter frequency f-zitt =2mc^2/h) that generates the electron’s de Broglie wavelength, just as the corresponding frequency generates the de Broglie wavelength even for atoms or small molecules (like Bucky-balls), which are complexes of many electrons, protons and neutrons with a single net mass. This is seen from the deBroglie-wavelength-predicted statistically-generated interference patterns observed in double-slit experiments with such atoms and molecules as well as electrons.
> 
>   So I have summarized a close fit between the double-helix photon model and the new closed single helix half-photon model for a stationary electron as seen in e-p pair production from a single photon of sufficient energy E=2mc^2. If the new electron model is moving relativistically, its energy would increase as E = gamma mc^2 as would a regular electron. It would move as described in my SPIE article “Electrons are spin-1/2 charged photons generating the de Broglie wavelength”, where “charged photons” are now understood to be “charged half-photons”, at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers <https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers> (article 20).
> 
>       Richard
> 
>> 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 of davidmathes8 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 at davidmathes8 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 <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 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/20180706/5d87d658/attachment.html>