[General] Can cyclic-photon electrons better describe superconductivity?

[Joakim Pettersson]

Hi Dan,

In solid state theory, an electron and a same (or opposite - not sure)
spindirection hole form one Cooper pair. In John W theory it is equivalent
to one photon knot moving together with a identical knot except that the
latter rotate the internal EM field in the opposite direcion (or knot moves
in opposite spacetime velocity - not sure). The net EM field cancels
outside the pair but oscillates linearly inside, even when the electrons
and hole field knots overlap 100% (not sure if that kind of overlap is
stable though). That net field double-knot becomes symmetric in the
separation plane between the electron and hole. Any number of such bosons
can therefore join in and interfere constructively to a net uber-boson-knot
Bose-Einstein condensate (a superconductor wavefunction) as long as they
also have the same spacetime velocity.

In free space, the solid-state hole quasiparticle is the the exact opposite
of a free electron: a free positron. But free particles are too weakly
coupled too condensate into a superconductor.

The external observations decribed here are known but knowledge of the
internal field oscillations makes measurements deterministic instead of
random in theory. But in practice each measurement is random unless the
whole measurement suite actually is phase-locked with the superconductor
multiphoton (easy) or its constituent electrons and holes (hard). The
condensate wavefunction phase is nothing new, but the new understanding of
it in terms of photons makes it make more sense, don't you think?

Br Joakim

Den tors 21 mars 2019 04:04DataPacRat <datapacrat at gmail.com> skrev:

> I'm still reading up on several peoples' approaches to electrons being
> made of cycling photons, but the lack of consistent terms between the
> different authours is making it hard for me to Google for further
> elaborations. For example, has any modelling been done on how
> electrons of this sort behave while superconducting? That is, does
> this model offer any testable predictions beyond that of the
> classical, single-point particle model of an electron?
>
>
> (PS: I've been asked to share my real name on this list. It's Daniel
> Eliot Boese, though I've been using DataPacRat since '01, and it's my
> preferred nom-de-net.)
>
> Thank you for your time,
> --
> Dan Boese, aka DataPacRat
> "Does aₘᵢₙ=2c²/Θ ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it
> were?"
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at joakimbits at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/joakimbits%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/20190322/c3846ef8/attachment.html>