<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Andrew:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have a very mundane view of time. Like, <EM>it’s just a measure of
motion</EM>. See <A
title=http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942
href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942">A
World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein</A> along with <A
href="http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/time-travel-is-science-fiction-t574.html">time
travel is science fiction</A>. So things like the passage of time or travelling
through time leave me cold. Ditto for spin about the time axis I’m afraid. I
feel more comfortable with the <A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93de_Haas_effect#Description">Einstein-de
Haas effect</A> which “<FONT face="Times New Roman">demonstrates that spin
angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of
rotating bodies as conceived in </FONT><A title="Classical mechanics"
style='href: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics"'><FONT
face="Times New Roman">classical mechanics</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman">”. </FONT>Maybe the issue is the standing-wave nature of
the electron? There’s a rotational action in the photon, and if the photon is
itself going round and round just so, the two rotations maybe cancel such that
the field variation looks like a standing field. But it isn’t really standing.
If you have a standing wave in a cavity and you drop one of the sides, that wave
is off like a shot. It moves at c from a “standing” start. It <EM>looked</EM>
like it was still and stationary and standing and static, but it wasn’t. It was
always dynamical. Ditto for the electron. If it wasn’t a dynamical spinor, it
wouldn’t go round and round in a magnetic field. Let me put it another way:
<EM>if it wasn’t spinning, your boomerang wouldn’t come back. </EM></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> <IMG title=electron_bending
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-IMAGE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px"
border=0 alt=electron_bending
src="cid:F60FEB1B15D7482EBB90641992B1259B@HPlaptop" width=504
height=334> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for an electron moving, IMHO one should start with <A
href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/compton.html#c1">Compton
scattering</A> because that’s the simplest situation. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><IMG title=compton
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-IMAGE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px"
border=0 alt=compton src="cid:A7B23876DD764A85849C79600093F81F@HPlaptop"
width=339 height=261></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The way I see it is that the electron “acquires a slice” of the incident
photon, such that the electron’s photonic field is no longer rotationally
symmetrical. Hence the electron moves. Draw repeated circles on a piece of paper
whilst somebody pulls the paper to the left. Or draw an incomplete circle, then
without lifting your pen, draw another and another and another. It has net
direction in space. I’m not sure about the 3D spin component that
precesses about the velocity vector. I’m struggling to visualize it.
Sorry. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards</DIV>
<DIV>John D</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=mules333@gmail.com
href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com">Andrew Meulenberg</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, February 21, 2015 3:25 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John Williamson</A> ; <A
title=mules333@gmail.com href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com">Andrew Meulenberg</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</A> ; <A title=pgvaidya@gmail.com
href="mailto:pgvaidya@gmail.com">P.G. Vaidya</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>
<DIV>Dear John W. and John D.,<BR><BR></DIV>Have you considered that a
'stationary' electron's spin could be about the time axis? It has no net
direction in space until it moves or has a force applied to it. At that point,
the electron field (photonic) is relativistically distorted and has a 3-D spin
component that precesses about the velocity (or force or field) vector. That
precession determines the deBroglie wavelength (and other
attributes?).<BR><BR></DIV>Andrew<BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>__________________________<BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:09 AM, John Williamson <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
target=_blank>John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" dir=ltr>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma; COLOR: #000000; DIRECTION: ltr">Hi
John,<BR><BR>Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The
mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more
in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values
(spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin
either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the
FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your
measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you
will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one
would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the
spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a
maximum clockwise at 180 degrees.<BR><BR>What one needs to do is model the
internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a
measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple
vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over
momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r
cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This
means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and
what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r
(lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right
value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the
whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point
in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the
hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton
mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must
tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency
that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a
non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the
quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time,
of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing
do if one tried to measure it? <BR><BR>This is why I say that the
electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate.
Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of)
experiment. <BR><BR>Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in
space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and
standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or
stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they
walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the
relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to
the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these
particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies)
mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction
which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go
first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the
track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track
a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They
walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a
rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their
arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole
rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at
the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom
counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track
supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the
whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not
support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong,
directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise
the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like
behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the
experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this
internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures
the spin.<BR><BR>Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In
reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic
self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any
particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow
coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you,
the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?)
that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as
different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations
mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and
vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at
all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path
(though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in
this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model
things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the
electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it
otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid
state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k
space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!)
are more likely to think of it like this.<BR><BR>This may sound overly
complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in
that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is
not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence
frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of
symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our
experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our
models against them!<BR><BR>Cheers, John.<BR><BR><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; COLOR: #000000">
<HR>
<DIV style="DIRECTION: ltr"><FONT color=#000000 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> John
Duffield [<A href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
target=_blank>johnduffield@btconnect.com</A>]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, February
15, 2015 4:23 PM<BR><B>To:</B> John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew
Meulenberg<SPAN><BR><B>Cc:</B> Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil
Matoušek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; <A
href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A>; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans
De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin
van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel Ošmera,
CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary;
Timothy Drysdale; <A href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com"
target=_blank>wfhagen@gmail.com</A><BR></SPAN>
<DIV>
<DIV class=h5><B>Subject:</B> Re: Photonic electron and
spin<BR></DIV></DIV></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=h5>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">John</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sorry I haven’t got back to your
before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas
effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as
classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is
going round and round in there, and it ain’t cheese. And like the “quantum
bicycle” is doesn’t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a
circle with your arms outstretched like you’re a kid pretending to be a plane,
then bank your arms. Only the photon isn’t some kid, it takes many paths, and
it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile
of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn’t good
enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it’s isn’t rotating
clockwise or anticlockwise, it’s rotating like this:</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><IMG title=ring_tor1_anim
style="DISPLAY: inline" alt=ring_tor1_anim
src="cid:CB0BA8EE9195448FB2A19F1B98074EC2@HPlaptop" width=320 height=240>.
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Every which way. But there’s nothing
mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a
real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is.
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">As regard field and force, IMHO
there’s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It’s trying to define the
field in terms of force, and it doesn’t work because you need two fields to
have a force*. It’s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons
are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they’re chiral
dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel.
IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are
throwing photons at one another. They aren’t doing this. They <I>are</I>
photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: <I>”the
Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and
B”<SPAN> </SPAN></I>There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that
result from field interactions. </FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Darn, I have to go. I’ll get back to
you some more later. </FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Regards</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">John</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">* forgetting about the photon
self-interaction for a moment</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV><B>From:</B> <A title=John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>John Williamson</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=johnduffield@btconnect.com
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target=_blank>John Duffield</A> ; <A
title=viv@etpsemra.com.au href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au"
target=_blank>Vivian Robinson</A> ; <A title=mules333@gmail.com
href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target=_blank>Andrew Meulenberg</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=richgauthier@gmail.com
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target=_blank>Richard Gauthier</A> ; <A
title=matousek@fme.vutbr.cz href="mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz"
target=_blank>"'doc. Ing. Radomil Matoušek"</A> ; <A
title=af.kracklauer@web.de href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target=_blank>A.
F. Kracklauer</A> ; <A title=afokay@gmail.com href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Adam K</A> ; <A title=ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu
href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A> ; <A title=chandra@phys.uconn.edu
href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu" target=_blank>Chandrasekhar
Roychoudhuri</A> ; <A title=h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl
href="mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" target=_blank>Hans De Raedt</A> ; <A
title=etherdais@gmail.com href="mailto:etherdais@gmail.com"
target=_blank>David Saint John</A> ; <A title=fionavdburgt@gmail.com
href="mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com" target=_blank>Fiona van der Burgt</A> ;
<A title=Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Jonathan Weaver</A>
; <A title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target=_blank>Mark, Martin van
der</A> ; <A title=er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com
href="mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com" target=_blank>Mayank Drolia</A> ; <A
title=mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk"
target=_blank>Michael Wright</A> ; <A title=nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk
href="mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk" target=_blank>Nick Green</A> ; <A
title=osmera@fme.vutbr.cz href="mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz"
target=_blank>"prof. Ing. Pavel Ošmera, CSc."</A> ; <A
title=QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com href="mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Rachel</A> ; <A title=rpenland@gmail.com
href="mailto:rpenland@gmail.com" target=_blank>Ralph Penland</A> ; <A
title=Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Robert Hadfield</A>
; <A title=hudginswr@msn.com href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com"
target=_blank>robert hudgins</A> ; <A title=sleary@vavi.co.uk
href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk" target=_blank>Stephen Leary</A> ; <A
title=Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk href="mailto:Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk"
target=_blank>Timothy Drysdale</A> ; <A title=wfhagen@gmail.com
href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target=_blank>wfhagen@gmail.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> RE: Photonic electron and spin</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma; COLOR: #000000; DIRECTION: ltr">Hi
Guys,<BR><BR>Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit
flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself).<BR><BR>I
think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too
loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking
about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A
force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but
have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different
again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a
differential of a vector of vectors),<BR><BR>o be more precise, in the usual
relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt,
-dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have
missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean.
That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the
field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless
antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You
cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a
force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into
the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where
this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar
potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge
constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book
level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not
really understand what the gauge is and what it is for. <BR><BR>You can
see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four.
These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one
frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will
also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this
is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we
wish to describe. <BR><BR>Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this
related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces
then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite
1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's
work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple
case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E
and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of
the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell
equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of
field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where
field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity.<BR><BR>Hope this
helps,<BR><BR>John.<BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; COLOR: #000000">
<HR>
<DIV style="DIRECTION: ltr"><FONT color=#000000 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> John
Duffield [<A href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
target=_blank>johnduffield@btconnect.com</A>]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday,
February 11, 2015 9:01 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Vivian Robinson; Andrew
Meulenberg<BR><B>Cc:</B> Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil Matoušek"; A.
F. Kracklauer; Adam K; <A href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A>; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans
De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan
Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green;
"prof. Ing. Pavel Ošmera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield;
robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; <A
href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com"
target=_blank>wfhagen@gmail.com</A><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Photonic electron
and spin<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Andrew:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Viv’s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look
again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative
measure of local motion. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Viv/Andrew:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I’d like to stress that the photon is an <I>electromagnetic</I> field
variation, and the electron has an <I>electromagnetic</I> field. The thing we
call an electric field isn’t really a field, it’s the linear force that
results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about
this, but I really do think it’s important. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All: </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can’t say what a
photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there’s not much point talking about
selectrons if you don’t know what an electron is. Or much else for that
matter. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards</DIV>
<DIV>John</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV><B>From:</B> <A title=viv@etpsemra.com.au
href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au" target=_blank>Vivian Robinson</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=mules333@gmail.com href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Andrew Meulenberg</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=richgauthier@gmail.com
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target=_blank>Richard Gauthier</A> ; <A
title=matousek@fme.vutbr.cz href="mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz"
target=_blank>"'doc. Ing. Radomil Matoušek"</A> ; <A
title=af.kracklauer@web.de href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target=_blank>A.
F. Kracklauer</A> ; <A title=afokay@gmail.com href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Adam K</A> ; <A title=ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu
href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A> ; <A title=chandra@phys.uconn.edu
href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu" target=_blank>Chandrasekhar
Roychoudhuri</A> ; <A title=h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl
href="mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" target=_blank>Hans De Raedt</A> ; <A
title=etherdais@gmail.com href="mailto:etherdais@gmail.com"
target=_blank>David Saint John</A> ; <A title=fionavdburgt@gmail.com
href="mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com" target=_blank>Fiona van der Burgt</A> ;
<A title=johnduffield@btconnect.com href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
target=_blank>John Duffield</A> ; <A title=John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>John Williamson</A>
; <A title=jonathan.weaver@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:jonathan.weaver@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Jonathan Weaver</A>
; <A title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target=_blank>Mark, Martin van
der</A> ; <A title=er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com
href="mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com" target=_blank>Mayank Drolia</A> ; <A
title=mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk"
target=_blank>Michael Wright</A> ; <A title=nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk
href="mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk" target=_blank>Nick Green</A> ; <A
title=osmera@fme.vutbr.cz href="mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz"
target=_blank>"prof. Ing. Pavel Ošmera, CSc."</A> ; <A
title=QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com href="mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Rachel</A> ; <A title=rpenland@gmail.com
href="mailto:rpenland@gmail.com" target=_blank>Ralph Penland</A> ; <A
title=Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Robert Hadfield</A>
; <A title=hudginswr@msn.com href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com"
target=_blank>robert hudgins</A> ; <A title=sleary@vavi.co.uk
href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk" target=_blank>Stephen Leary</A> ; <A
title=tim.drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk href="mailto:tim.drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk"
target=_blank>Timothy Drysdale</A> ; <A title=wfhagen@gmail.com
href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target=_blank>wfhagen@gmail.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: Photonic electron and spin</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>Dear
Andrew and all,
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under
this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at
problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have
had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas
would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then
apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect.
If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I
contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a
toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something
about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields,
polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established
and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic
fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established.
Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a
particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help
sort these things out. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an
electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote
a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the
Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics
Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two
revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether
the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite
number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and
defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr
magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's
charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the
Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock.
It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity
corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of
electron.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU"
target=_blank>http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the
electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin
depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin
are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised
because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer.
It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is
measured. </DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I hope this helps your understanding.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cheers,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Viv Robinson</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg <<A
href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target=_blank>mules333@gmail.com</A>>
wrote:</DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Dear Richard,<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>You answered my request for a reference to your statement
<SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">"A non-moving
electron’s spin is undefined until it’s measured with respect to something,
and even then I think it has to be moving" with: </SPAN></SPAN><BR>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 40px"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse"> "I think
that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't
exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity
measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some
measurement axis." </SPAN><BR></DIV>I suspected that the reference would be
to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all
of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for
such a statement, I would appreciate it.<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of
discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the
mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be
fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the
deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear
particles and physics.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the
point.<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However,
the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It <U>has</U> been made that way
in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally
may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed
from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted'
wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the
photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is
possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can
therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is
one with a uniform isotropic <B>E</B>-field out-directed to create the
Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy
density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the
positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to
electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism
for this 'rectification' process.<BR><BR></DIV>This mechanism creates the
electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has
neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and
spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles.
(Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or
'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.)<BR><BR></DIV>When
stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum
in <U>all</U> directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions,
at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the
photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These
forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz
contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic
'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the
spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if
in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at
velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis
for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the
atomic-electron orbits.<BR><BR></DIV>Once these things are understood,
rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly
explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see
that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the
neutrino) and begins with the photon.<BR><BR></DIV>Andrew<BR>
<DIV><BR><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
List at johnduffield@btconnect.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>