[General] Superluminal electron model
richgauthier at gmail.com
richgauthier at gmail.com
Sun Jul 22 08:50:06 PDT 2018
Hello Wolfgang, Albrecht, John W, Martin and all,
I want to let you know that my new article “Quantum-Vortex Electron Formed From Superluminal Double-Helix Photon in Electron-Positron Pair Production” is now available at (and can be downloaded from) https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research <https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research> . I welcome your comments. For your convenience I’ve also appended the pdf file below.
Richard
> On Jul 20, 2018, at 10:25 AM, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote:
>
> Richard:
>
> I like both your comments - however I am having a continued discussion with Albrecht regarding my own belief that we must understand the role of conscious living human beings who develop the theory as being more fundamental than the theory such beings develop
>
> 1) Along those lines I believe there is a basic underlying material-space which generates our experience of space and the constant "c" should be attached to the rate at which the observer moves through his own state transitions rather than attributed to properties of an independent external space.
>
> 2) the direction of reduction-ism leads us to the quantum limit beyond which all concepts become mental inferences - continuing to push to deeper and deeper reductionist directions without recognizing the mental aspect of inference chains which as sir A. Edinggton pointed out lead to knowledge of ones own methodology of inquiry - eventually the chain of inferences gets so long there is nothing left out there but knowledge of ones self
> Best
>
> Wolf
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
> On 7/12/2018 1:43 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> I understand - and I agree with you - that it is not very practical to work on all open questions in physics at the same time; and to discuss everything in this forum in parallel. But I believe that there are some good rules to be followed in developing theories and models.
>>
>> You are working on your particle model since 30 years. This is very impressive and I see that you have had a lot of discussions to ensure your model. But regarding the rules about which you also have asked questions in the last time, there are still some points to discuss and to question.
>>
>> One point is the general limitation to the speed of light. That is a general and universal rule if we follow Einstein. But even independent of Einstein, if we follow a more broad understanding of relativity, we have dilation as an experimentally well proven fact. And dilation could not function as it does if there would be periodic processes in particles which are superluminal.
>>
>> The other rule - more like a compass - is the direction given by reductionism; which means that every observed process in physics can be seen in a way that it is deduced from a lower level with a simpler functionality and having less complex constituents.
>>
>> This was my motivation for my last comment to your model.
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 07.07.2018 um 00:43 schrieb richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>:
>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>> There are so many open questions in physics to be solved, involving the relationship of mind to matter, materialism versus idealism, dark matter, dark energy, the origin of the universe, etc. I’m not very interested in using this discussion group “Nature of light and particles” for such open-ended discussions, and I prefer that it remain focused on the nature of light and particles. My goal is to increase my understanding of this topic and hopefully to correct and improve my ideas and hypotheses in this area. When creative people who have new ideas on this topic or good questions share, discuss, criticize and improve these ideas and find ways to test or apply them, this is what I consider progress. When unproductive or mistaken ideas are weeded out, that is also progress. My own ideas on this topic have definitely evolved over the last 30 years since I started writing about them. See my book "Microvita: Cosmic Seeds of Life” published in 1988 at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research <https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research> (number 33), “Microvita: A new approach to matter, life and health”, “FTL Quantum models of the photon and the electron”, “A transluminal energy quantum model of the cosmic quantum”, etc. I have really enjoyed and benefited from discussions in this group.
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>> On Jul 5, 2018, at 7:26 AM, Albrecht Giese <phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <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 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>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <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 <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 <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 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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys 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 Wolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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
> <a href="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/20180722/f4842b9b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Quantum Vortex Electron and Double-Helix Photon article 22 July 2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 7728849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180722/f4842b9b/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180722/f4842b9b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the General
mailing list