[General] Superluminal electron model

Sat Jun 30 13:09:21 PDT 2018

David asked a question on Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> which is also relevant here:

Richard
I think you are getting close on this. Can you propose an experiment or provide a prediction with your theory?

I replied:

Hi David,

   Yes, the superluminal open-double-helix photon model and the superluminal closed-single-helix electron model make a nice, perhaps even elegant, "package". One approach to testing this two-model package would be to experimentally very closely examine electron-positron pair production from gamma-ray photons of energies equal to or slightly greater than the total rest energies of an electron-positron pair, or 2 x 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV. Electron-positron pair production usually happens near an atomic nucleus, which is needed to conserved total linear momentum in the e-p production process from a single photon.  It would be great if experimental particle physicists looked very closely for any evidence of the double-helix photon model's dipole charges Q = 16.6e and Q=-16.6e being converted into the positron's charge e and electron's charge -e during the e-p pair production process.

    I don't know how finely electron-positron pair production was actually examined experimentally in the past (and surely there are more accurate techniques available today), since physicists weren't really trying to test a particular photon model and a particular electron model at the time.  Arthur Compton (of the Compton effect) did have his own semi-classical model of the electron, which he later discarded for lack of experimental evidence to support it. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but in my limited understanding, quantum electrodynamics (QED) considers electron-positron pair production to be a "black-box" process: a photon goes in and an electron-positron pair comes out, perhaps only temporarily in the case of virtual particles. What happens DURING e-p pair production is I think not mentioned but rather is passed over in silence. The mathematics of quantum theory contains various "creation operators" that bring particles into existence and "destruction operators" which take them out of existence,  which I learned about in a physics graduate school quantum mechanics class in 1969. But even then I felt that this was a rather unsatisfying non-explanation of quantum processes.

     Richard

> On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:08 PM, John Williamson <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/20180630/0769385b/attachment.html>