<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Richard,<br><br></div>comments below<br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Richard Gauthier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Hi Andrew,<div><br><div> I think the explanation of the transformation of photon to an e-p pair is very relevant to the theme of the “Nature of light and particles” e-group, so that I think the e-group should be included in the discussion (anyone can always push “delete". Plus it gives the others a chance to give their opinions and criticisms which could be helpful. I hope you will encourage your French colleague to join the e-group. <b>{will do, However, he is presently learning QED to approach the problem from that perspective.} </b>We always have google-translate when needed. <b>{not needed}</b> I won’t be of any help when it comes to Clifford algebra although it is definitely a useful tool, but I’d like to be part of the discussion. <b>{too bad google-translate doesn't do Cliford algebra} </b>What did you mean by light cone? Are you referring to the Minkowski light cone? <b>{Yes}</b><br></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div><br></div><div>I think the regular uncharged photon becomes two spin-1/2 charged photons, which then curl up to become an electron and a positron, so this process should take some small amount of time. The two spin-1/2 photons coming from a single spin-1 uncharged photon may be initially uncharged (if the formation process is continuous) and then gain their + and - charges continuously as they curl up to form stable particles (perhaps solitons, if adding this concept is helpful.) </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree with you here almost completely. I would only add two words. "... gain their + and - charges continuously as they curl up to <b>separate and</b> form stable particles." Your single sentence contains (and infers) many important points, some generally accepted, <i>some not:</i><br><ol><li> two spin-1/2 photons coming from a single spin-1 uncharged photon <br></li><li>initially uncharged and massless<br></li><li><i>the formation process is continuous</i></li><li><i>gain their + and - charges continuously <br></i></li><li><i>they curl up to form stable
particles (with mass)<br></i></li><li><i>solitons,</i></li><li>I would add that <i>mass and charge both form/grow in the process of curling and separating</i><br></li></ol></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div>In QED, e-p pairs form as virtual particles from photons all the time and then return to being a photon, so that virtual pair production and disappearance might be included in the discussion also. And an e-p pair can mutually annihilate after forming positronium for a very short time, to become two or three (or sometimes more I think) photons. So this would need to be included in the discussion.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I had not considered the virtual e-p pair formation as a real or useful concept. However, in the context of stochastic electro-dynamics<b>, E</b>-field polarization and separation of photons and, perhaps if explained properly, the concept of virtual pairs (i.e., examples of charged photons) could be useful. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div><br></div><div> My article “Transluminal Energy Quantum Model of a Spin-1/2 Charged Photon Composing an Electron” is the sixth article at <a href="https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers" target="_blank">https://richardgauthier.acade<wbr>mia.edu/research#papers</a> . It’s key ideas (besides being internally superluminal with internal speed c sqrt(2) and having a helical angle 45-degrees like my photon model) are that the spin-1/2 photon model's helical radius lambda/4pi is 1/2 the helical radius lambda/2pi of my model of a spin-1 uncharged photon, and the spin-1/2 photon model makes two helical turns per photon wavelength as compared to one helical turn per photon wavelength in my spin-1 photon model. (This helps in the creation of a double-looping photon model of the electron with its zitterbewegung frequency f=2 mc^2/h .) </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Richard, I would consider your transluminal model as a worthwhile attempt to reconcile relativity and light /matter interactions. It causes kneejerk rejection, just as your charged -photon model does (see below). Nevertheless, it may have its place in the ultimate picture. I have approached the same problem from a different viewpoint in my model of the distortion of space associated with high energy densities within elementary particles and photons. This distortion reduces the speed of light (by increasing the refractive index) locally to create the solitonic photon and the whispering-gallery-mode confinement of a photon into an electron. It could be that your local transluminousity and my energy-density-induced distortion of space would cancel to allow the transfer of energy to still be limited to the velocity of light in free space.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div>So when two spin-1/2 photons models are side-by-side (as in photon -> e-p production), their radii would add up in amplitude to the amplitude of the radius of a spin-1 photon, and also have the same “apparent" wavelength, i.e. the same length of a single helical turn of the spin-1 photon model (while each spin-1/2 photon model actually having twice the wavelength and therefore half the energy) of the spin-1 photon transforming into the e-p pair.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Your side-by-side charged-photon model may be similar to (a variant of?) Albrecht's two-body electron model. And, while I may reject both models as stated (for various reasons), I also use the concept of polarization to separate the 'potentials' within a photon in the creation of an electron-positron pair. Thus, the three of us may be approaching a 'truth' that QM has swept under its rug as 'inconvenient'. Modern QM allows violation of conservation laws (within the limits of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation) during an interaction - as long as they are maintained after the interaction. Our models are attempts to explain this 'QM magic' and restore some reality to difficult processes.<br><br>I'm now looking to Hestenes' Space-Time Algebra and Dirac's equations as a means of bringing these, and other, models together with an acceptable language.<br><br></div><div>Andrew M.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div><br></div><div> all the best,</div><div> Richard</div><div><div class="gmail-m_6490909961097083212gmail-m_4855332924468507138gmail-h5"><h4 class="gmail-m_6490909961097083212gmail-m_4855332924468507138gmail-m_6707695652621404474media-heading" style="box-sizing:border-box;font-family:Lora,serif;font-weight:400;line-height:1.4;color:rgb(35,35,35);margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:12px;font-size:20px"><br></h4><div><br></div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Sep 15, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_6490909961097083212gmail-m_4855332924468507138gmail-m_6707695652621404474Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Dear Richard,<br><br></div>Since I believe the electron to be a bound photon, I must also believe it to have spin-1/2, mass, and charge associated with the photon trapped in a specific condition. Do you consider the charged photon to exist independently (beyond the ephemeral transition period) without the specific condition(s)? <br><br>I consider the chargeless, massless, spin-1, photon to be a self-bound solition. By extension, the electron-positron pair is a bifurcation of that soliton that is stable because it forms two new self-bound solitons.<br><br></div><div>I am planning on exploring the characteristics of the 'photon to electron/positron transition' in terms of the time-cone and Hestenes' spacetime algebra. I think that he may have misinterpreted some of the implications from the math; but, his approach seems to be the best path to unifying the concepts.<br><br></div><div>If you care to share this development, we could do it on this forum (if others are interested and wish to comment/contribute, or simply for a public record) or just between us, until we get some serious results.<br><br></div><div>I will also be working on this project with a retired applied mathematician (French) with whom I have been publishing results of the Dirac equations as a basis for deep-electron orbits (with binding energy in the 500 keV range). If you and I decide to do this study on the Nature of Light forum, I will ask him if he wishes to join the group.<br> </div><div><br></div>Andrew M.<br>_ _ _ <br><div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Richard Gauthier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div>Hi Andrew and all,</div><div> I’m familiar with Hestene’s zitter model of the electron, though I don’t follow his Clifford spacetime algebra that he used to derive it from the Dirac equation. Hestenes doesn’t call his helically-circulating (with helical radius hbar/2mc = Lambda-compton/4pi) light-speed charged-particle zitter electron model a spin-1/2 charged photon, but it sounds like it could be one to me. Dirac said in his Nobel lecture: </div><div><br></div><div><p><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria">“It is found that an electron which seems to
us to be moving slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory
motion of small amplitude superposed on the regular motion which appears to us.
As a result of this oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any
time equals the velocity of light. This is a prediction which cannot be
directly verified by experiment, since the frequency of the oscillatory motion
is so high and its amplitude is so small. But one must believe in this
consequence of the theory, since other consequences of the theory which are
inseparably bound up with this one, such as the law of scattering of light by
an electron, are confirmed by experiment.” </span><font size="3" face="Cambria"><a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/dirac-lecture.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.nobel<wbr>prize.org/nobel_prizes/physics<wbr>/laureates/1933/dirac-lecture.<wbr>pdf</a> , p322.</font><span style="font-family:Cambria;font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div> Dirac's electron description also seems consistent with the idea that the electron is a spin-1/2 charged photon. </div><div> Richard</div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail-m_6490909961097083212gmail-m_4855332924468507138gmail-m_6707695652621404474gmail-h5"><div>On Sep 14, 2017, at 8:57 PM, Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_6490909961097083212gmail-m_4855332924468507138gmail-m_6707695652621404474gmail-m_6751283123531109754Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div><div><div><div class="gmail-m_6490909961097083212gmail-m_4855332924468507138gmail-m_6707695652621404474gmail-h5"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Richard,<br><br></div>I noticed that you are following Hestenes on researchgate. Have you read his <br><h3><a href="http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/ZBWinQM15**.pdf" target="_blank">Zitterbewegung in Quantum Mechanics <font size="2"><span style="font-weight:normal"><br>D. Hestenes, published in: Foundations of Physics, Vol. 40, 1-54 (2010); (also available at</span></font></a><font size="2"> </font><span style="font-weight:normal"><a href="http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/html/GAinQM.html" target="_blank">http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/ht<wbr>ml/GAinQM.html</a>)</span></h3><p>If so, I think there are some important points, which we could discuss, that pertain to both photons and electrons. For example, below eq 44:</p><p style="margin-left:40px"><span class="gmail-m_6490909961097083212gmail-m_4855332924468507138gmail-m_6707695652621404474gmail-m_6751283123531109754gmail-fontstyle2">"<b>S</b> </span><span class="gmail-m_6490909961097083212gmail-m_4855332924468507138gmail-m_6707695652621404474gmail-m_6751283123531109754gmail-fontstyle0">cannot be a timelike bivector, though it can be null</span>
"</p><p>and</p><p style="margin-left:40px">"<span class="gmail-m_6490909961097083212gmail-m_4855332924468507138gmail-m_6707695652621404474gmail-m_6751283123531109754gmail-fontstyle0">for a lightlike particle<i> [a photon]</i> the spin must be a lightlike bivector.</span>"</p><p>He doesn't come out and say that electron spin is a spacelike bivector; but, he should. (Perhaps he has done so in another paper?) <br></p><p>Once it is recognized that spin is a rotation about a time axis (for all but photons), rather than a space axis, many of the QM problems associated with electrons and their interactions are reduced or eliminated.</p><p>Andrew M.<br></p><p><br style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"></p></div></div></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflig<wbr>htandparticles.org/options.cgi<wbr>/general-natureoflightandparti<wbr>cles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.<wbr>com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>