[General] Superluminal electron model

[Viv Robinson]

Dear Albrecht, Richard and All,

IMHO it is perhaps time to comment/review the activities of this General Discussion on the Nature of Light and Particles. I would like to start by thanking Chandra for his continued hosting of this discussion forum. After that it appears to me that things have somewhat deviated. It is my understanding that the discussion centered around the idea that electrons were confined photons, as for example the Williamson and van der Mark 1997 model “Is the electron a toroidal photons?” or, Qui Hong’s 2007 publication “The Nature of the Electron” (http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0512265v1.pdf), my 2011 paper on "“A Proposal on the Structure and Properties of the Electron” and others that followed later. 

One of the common features of all the participants appears to be a dissatisfaction with some aspects of the standard models. Part of that appears due to the mathematical nature of modern physics. It has become common practice to describe “things” using mathematics that often have no physical meaning. One example is the 1926 Copenhagen Interpretation of the photon as a point particle. A common representation of a photon was described by  Chandra in 2012, somewhat as a point particle to which properties have been attached in a Hamiltonian. It is used to get the right answer. No physical reason is given for the properties ascribed to the photon. The standard model also treats electrons as a point particle to which its properties can also be attached in a Hamiltonian. It has some physical basis because it has been experimentally measured as a point particle. It likewise has no physical description. A third example is the prediction of black holes. They are an entirely mathematical description based upon a mathematical solution to Einstein’s mathematically derived field equations. They have no physical justification. 

Mathematicians have convinced many physicists that mathematics dominates the physical sciences. An often used statement goes “That is what the mathematics predicts, so it must be right”. It has some successes like the QED prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, a difference of ≈ 0.116%. That comes at a cost. It requires an energy density very much stronger than the observed average energy density of space. 

Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe it is discrepancies like those that led many in this group to question some of the core values of theoretical physics. A positive aspect of that is reflected in the number of advances that have come from questioning accepted “norms". Questioning shows an ability for independent thought and should be encouraged. 

IMHO such questioning should not make the same mistakes as the standard model practitioners. Defining a new particle and giving it properties that “explain” a few points is similar to defining a point particle and attaching properties to it. It does not give any physical meaning. I am reminded of a comment made by a teacher at school. “If you can’t get the right answer by cheating, there is no hope for you!” Aspects of the standard model have done a "good job" of that The use undetected and undefined concepts like quarks and gluons with different flavors and colors and  point particles with Hamiltonians attached and get an answer they want us to believe. If this group has any hope of forwarding alternatives to the standard models, it must do better than that. 

The objective of this group was/is to discuss the nature of light and particles. Light is usually interpreted as electromagnetic radiation. Particles are most usually interpreted as protons, neutrons, electrons and neutrinos, with occasional reference to the 200+ short lived particles muons, pions etc detected in high energy particle collisions. The general interpretation is  that particles are somehow composed of photons, not the other way round. 

Several models have been proposed to explain a relationship between photons and particles, notably the electron. The most common means has been an electron composed of a photon making two revolutions within its wavelength, see references above. Along the way there have been suggestions such as rotars, hods and charged half photons to mention some proposed alternatives. They all appear to be lacking a physical description supported by the appropriate mathematics based upon fundamental known properties. 

The fundamental properties we have for photons are electric permittivity, ep0, and magnetic permeability mu0. Even their speed through space, c, is derived from them. IMHO it would considerably aid participants case if used properties were defined in terms of those and other known physical constants such as Planck’s constant, h, Newton’s universal gravitational constant, G and the fundamental unit of electric charge, e. 

As an example only, what is half a photon? Under the standard model it could be interpreted as half a point with selected properties attached to it. Under the Einstein-de Broglie model, it is half a psi wave function. If that wave function is one wavelength long, it could be interpreted as half that wavelength being half a photon. If it is "n" wavelengths, is it n/2 wavelengths? Then how do you attach charge to it? Then there is the issue of superluminal travel. It requires the product of ep0 times mu0 to be reduced. How does that occur? Added to that is that the Williamson and van der Mark/Qui Hong/Robinson and others model using a whole photon making two revolutions per wavelength automatically leads from spin I-omega = half hbar, to E = mc^2. 

How does introducing undefined concepts differ from current standard model practices? Getting a match with one observation is not difficult. Standard model physicists claim to be able to get matches for many observations. 

IMHO this discussion group should be about getting ideas that can challenge the standard model. As complex as they are, the standard models have made significant progress. They have a few massive failures, eg, the very high energy density required to match the electron’s magnetic moment and the incredible odds, 1 : 10^60, of the universe surviving in any form after the Big Bang, as well as some lesser ones like dark matter and dark energy and quantum mechanics being unable to define time. 

If there is a desire to replace the standard model of the structure of matter by considering matter is composed of electromagnetic energy, i.e. photons, it should be done in a systematic manner. IMHO the universe is contained in three space dimensions and time. The fundamental physical properties include ep0,mu0, h, G and e. To those must be added known physical laws and mathematical constants, eg π and logn. I don’t pretend that list is complete. They should form the basis of any hypothesis forwarded.  

It would help your case if the proposed structure was shown to be related to some of those properties. For a photon related entity, the starting point should at least show how it relates to ep0 and mu0. I would argue that mass is related to ep0 and mu0 via time through mass m = h.nu,ep0.mu0, where nu is frequency. 

The above is meant as a constructive suggestion about how to progress this discussion towards a viable alternative to the standard model. Otherwise this may well become a forum for people to forward their own ideas that have no no possibility of challenging the standard model. 

Richard, I have observed the progress of your super luminal charged half photon model and offer some comments. First I refer to the structure of a photon presented in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308361359_Classical_Aspects_of_a_Photon_Wave_Function_PS
Note that the circularly polarzed photon presented in figures 4 and 5 and described in Equations 9 and 10 shows separate electric fields spiraling around each other as a field. Through Maxwell’s equations, that also generates the opposing magnetic fields. Note also that the centre of mass of the photon spirals at sqrt2 c in order to give the photon its hbar spin. That does not mean it is superluminal travel because it is a mathematical point. That is no different from the centres of masses of Earth and the sun, which are used to accurately calculate Earth’s orbit around the sun. Those centres are mathematical points used for ease of calculation. It does not mean that all the mass is concentrated in them. The photon itself is traveling at c. The mathematical point is traveling a sqrt2 c. 

Note also that figure 4C shows that the positive field is located on one side of the photon and the negative field on the other. When the photon collapses in on itself as a result of impinging on a nucleus that doesn’t absorb it, the positive and negative halves will collapse upon each other, generating a positive charged loop and a negative charged loop, the positron and electron respectively. I am not really sure that you are describing two half charged photons traveling at superluminal speeds. 

As for the tendency to describe everything in mathematical terms, I refer to Einstein’s relativity theories. He used mathematics to derive his special and general theories. Over 100 years later scientists are still arguing about their validity because they don’t understand them. There is nothing wrong with Einstein’s special relativity and there is no fixed reference point in space. The corrections are due to the rotating photon model of matter and they are all relative to the observer. As far as general relativity is concerned, he used tensors to derive his corrections. His mathematics made it exceedingly difficult to understand what is physically occurring. It appears that many scientists wish to emulate his success using mathematics alone. 

The general relativity principle is nothing more than Newtonian mechanics applied to photons, see for example:-
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325988703_The_Origins_of_General_Relativity_and_the_Fabric_of_Space-Time?showFulltext=1&linkId=5b320a130f7e9b0df5cbd40f

with DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22427.16165

The above article shows Newtonian mechanics applied to photons that have mass, accurately predicts Mercury's observed precession and other GR features. 

IMHO Einstein overlooked Newton’s Proposition 45 of volume 1 and failed to pick up that Mercury’s precession means that gravity is weaker than inverse square law. As mass and hence z increases, gravity becomes weaker than inverse square law. Black holes are an example where mathematical predictions are not physically possible. 

Of course participant are entitled to question my work. My comments are mainly intended to suggest there is a greater chance of acceptance of participants contributions if new terms are defined using known fundamental constants.  


Cheers,

Vivian Robinson.


On 13 July 2018 at 6:43:49 AM, Albrecht Giese (phys at a-giese.de) 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:
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 (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> 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:
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180724/9ad7b4f4/attachment.html>