<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello all,<div class=""> Two days ago John Duffield commented in <a href="http://Academia.edu" class="">Academia.edu</a> about the proposed superluminal half-photon model of the electron with toroidal topology:<div data-comment-id="427881" class="comment" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(73, 72, 72); font-family: Roboto, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><div class="discussion-comment-post-wrapper" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="js-comment-body post" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0.8em; margin-bottom: 0.8em; white-space: pre-wrap; line-height: 22px; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="js-non-expanded-comment" style="box-sizing: border-box;">I don't think it's superluminal, Richard. Or a half photon. But I do think it's a toroidal photon as per Williamson and van der Mark's 1997 paper <a href="http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf" class="">http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf</a> .</span></div><div class="js-comment-body post" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0.8em; margin-bottom: 0.8em; white-space: pre-wrap; line-height: 22px; font-family: Georgia, serif;">I replied:</div><div class="js-comment-body post" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0.8em; margin-bottom: 0.8em; white-space: pre-wrap; line-height: 22px; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="js-non-expanded-comment" style="box-sizing: border-box;"> Hi John,</span></div><div class="js-comment-body post" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0.8em; margin-bottom: 0.8em; white-space: pre-wrap; line-height: 22px; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="js-non-expanded-comment" style="box-sizing: border-box;"> I understand that you are partial to the 1997 Williamson/van der Mark electron model described in their article "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?", which is also at <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273418514_Is_the_electron_a_photon_with_toroidal_topology" class="">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273418514_Is_the_electron_a_photon_with_toroidal_topology</a> . But please take a look at my internally superluminal double-helix photon article at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/36771264/Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant_Has_Inertial_Mass_M_E_c_2" class="">https://www.academia.edu/36771264/Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant_Has_Inertial_Mass_M_E_c_2</a> </span> . You may see from this why an electron could conceivably be formed from a hypothesized superluminal half-photon. Just take one wavelength (equal to 1/2 a Compton wavelength) of one charged internally superluminal half-photon from the double-helix model of energy E=2mc^2 and curl it up in a SINGLE loop to form a superluminal spin-1/2 half-photon electron model, naturally having toroidal topology as any curled up helical trajectory would have.</div><div class="js-comment-body post" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0.8em; margin-bottom: 0.8em; white-space: pre-wrap; line-height: 22px; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="js-expanded-comment" style="box-sizing: border-box;"> Richard</span></div></div></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 30, 2018, at 4:05 PM, <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello David, John and all,<div class=""><br class=""><div class=""> I’ve uploaded the internally superluminal electron model’s equations to <a href="https://www.academia.edu/36949016/Is_the_electron_a_superluminal_half-photon_with_toroidal_topology" class="">https://www.academia.edu/36949016/Is_the_electron_a_superluminal_half-photon_with_toroidal_topology</a> for your future reference. I think the title is kind of “catchy”, while acknowledging two pioneers in the field. The double-helix photon model is at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/36771264/Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant_Has_Inertial_Mass_M_E_c_2" class="">https://www.academia.edu/36771264/Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant_Has_Inertial_Mass_M_E_c_2</a> . I think of the double-helix photon model and the electron model as a kind of package of models which I hope will be self-consistent, presumably like John’s models of the electron and the photon in his new paper.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Dirac insisted in his Nobel Prize lecture that electrons really travel at c (the eigenvalues for electron velocity come out +c and -c from the Dirac equation) but apparently travel at less than c due to their small amplitude and high frequency of internal vibration (at the zitterbewegung frequency f=2mc^2/h). But I wonder if anyone really believed him. Though the double-helix photon model is internally superluminal, it travels longitudinally at c, and its calculated inertial mass E/c^2 also travels forward at c. No problems with faster-than-light here. The photon model's invariant mass is zero, like the actual photon’s invariant mass.) The electron model, though internally superluminal, travels forward (longitudinally) always with an average velocity less than c.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> So the superluminality of an energy quantum composing a particle may not be such a problem as some make it out to be. I don’t know that Einstein ever put any “restrictions” on theoretical internal velocities within a moving particle, whether a photon or a particle with mass. The unwillingness of Lorentz and other physicists to explain an electron’s spin and magnetic moment by internal faster-than-light motion because of Einstein’s restriction, caused leading physicists to finally say that an electron is point like and its spin is “intrinsic”, ie unexplainable.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Richard</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 29, 2018, at 5:35 AM, <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="font-size: 14px;" class="">Hello all,</div><div style="font-size: 14px;" class=""> Here are the equations for the superluminal half-photon electron model. I am using the program Graphing Calculator at <a href="https://www.pacifict.com/" class="">https://www.pacifict.com</a> to graph them.</div><div style="font-size: 14px;" class="">Clearly the equations themselves are not copyrighted. Oreste, what do you think?</div><div style="font-size: 14px;" class=""> Richard</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><span id="cid:14877496-F667-44F0-9FF5-59F39CBCF99D@attlocal.net" class=""><PastedGraphic-3.tiff></span><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:08 PM, John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" class="">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10pt;" class=""><div style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10pt;" class="">Here you go David, a few answers ...<br class=""><hr tabindex="-1" class=""><div id="divRpF752793" style="direction: ltr;" class=""><font size="2" face="Tahoma" class=""><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] on behalf of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" class="">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>[<a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" class="">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a>]<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday, June 28, 2018 3:19 AM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br class=""><b class="">Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Oreste Caroppo; martin Mark van der<br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Superluminal electron model<br class=""></font><br class=""></div><div class="">Richard,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">A few questions...</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">0. How many electron models are there now? Is there a diagram or mapping showing how all the zitterbewegung models are related?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Mu: Lots!<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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? <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">No - the electron is not, and has never been, its own antiparticle. That is the positron.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">2. Can the new electron be described using the mathematical formalism of Dirac, Majorna and Weyl?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">No, Dirac is strictly (and famously) lightspeed. Hence the "zitterbewegung" at all.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">3. What is the mechanism for creating a local FTL environment to permit FTL photons or quanta?</div><div class=""><span class=""><div class="">Superluminal wave velocities within the electron "shell" are possible using the definition of </div><div class="">c = SQRT(permittivity * permittivity) by simply decreasing either permittivity or permeability...or both.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">NRI papers have been fashionable, but I do not think Richard uses them<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></span></div><div class="">4. How does this new electron model - or any other electron model for that matter - sustain a shell barrier?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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?<br class=""></div><div class=""> </div><div class="">5. Are the superluminal versions of other electron models? That is, how widespread is this conjecture?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Yes - Superluminal charge though, is, I think this is the major weakness of Richards model, as it messes up mass in relativity. Not good!<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">6. Does the new electron model explain charge? That is, is charge considered invariant within the "shell"?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Charge invariance is inconsistent with FTL - as outlined above.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">7. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><span class=""><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">8. Does this model address stochastic electrodynamics where <span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">Zitterbewegung is explained as an interaction of a classical particle? Does this model fit within </span><a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/collective-electrodynamics" rel="nofollow" class="enhancr_card_0221840877" target="_blank">Collective Electrodynamics</a> (Carver Meade)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><span class=""><div class="">9. Does the new electron model - a zbw model - have sufficient linkage to the confirmed conjectures of Dirac, Majorna and Weyl fermions?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards, John.<br class=""></div><br class=""></span></div><div style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10pt;" class=""><span class=""></span><span class=""></span><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px;" class=""><div class=""><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" class=""><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" class=""><div class=""><span class=""><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Notes:</div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Notably, zitterbewegung was predicted by Schroedinger in 1930 and confirmed using BEC in 2013.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></span></div><div class="">ref:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1718" rel="nofollow" class="enhancr_card_0779676588" target="_blank">[1006.1718] Dirac, Majorana and Weyl fermions</a><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/525293e" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">Condensed-matter physics: Weyl particles discovered (2015)</a><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://news.stanford.edu/2017/07/20/evidence-particle-antiparticle/" rel="nofollow" class="enhancr_card_1025704008" target="_blank">Evidence for a particle that is its own antiparticle (2017)| Stanford News</a> <br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/this-new-proof-of-majorana-fermions-is-going-to-be-massive-for-quantum-devices" rel="nofollow" class="enhancr_card_0888238275" target="_blank">This New Proof of Majorana Fermions Is Going to Be Massive For Quantum Devices</a><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div id="ydp70006240yahoo_quoted_0448083737" class="ydp70006240yahoo_quoted"><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(38, 40, 42);" class=""><div class="">On Wednesday, June 27, 2018, 5:50:16 PM PDT,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div id="ydp70006240yiv1559197444" class=""><div class="ydp70006240yiv1559197444">Hello all,</div><div class="ydp70006240yiv1559197444"> I thought some of you might like to see a new electron model, composed of a superluminal spin-1/2 charged half-photon. </div><div class="ydp70006240yiv1559197444"><br class=""></div><div class="ydp70006240yiv1559197444">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.</div><div class="ydp70006240yiv1559197444"><br class=""></div><div class="ydp70006240yiv1559197444"> 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.</div><div class="ydp70006240yiv1559197444"> Comments or questions?</div><div class="ydp70006240yiv1559197444"> Richard </div><div class="ydp70006240yiv1559197444"><br class="ydp70006240yiv1559197444"></div><div class="ydp70006240yiv1559197444"><br class="ydp70006240yiv1559197444"></div><div class="ydp70006240yiv1559197444"></div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" class="">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a><br class=""><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">Click here to unsubscribe<br class=""></a><br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">"></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Click here to unsubscribe</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""></a></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>