"Zitterbewegung structure in electrons and photons"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.11085.pdf
"The electron’s circular orbit at the speed of light constitutes the most elementary superconductor possible, generating the flux quantum h/e"
The church of SM physics
-
-
The electron’s circular orbit at the speed of light constitutes
Such people should be detained into mad house. Such papers I read when there is no comedy available on TV.
No particle with a claimed mass can move at light speed....
From Dirac Nobel Lecture
Dirac is the origin of the mess in physics. His famous equation is the biggest blunder in physics history that contains at least two major conceptual errors. Such things happen if a mathematician with no clue of physics start to produce a new fantasy world...
-
Dirac is the origin of the mess in physics. His famous equation is the biggest blunder
Dirac has many disciples,,,
but Nature is a bit more complex than the 1939 Bra-Ket
"
4.1.2 There is no Bra-Ket symmetry
The most basic form of energy is photons and not field energy. Photon transport (besides radiation fields) is the most
universal form of energy exchange in the whole universe. For simple cases of photon transport in an electron shell the
Bra-Ket operator works fine as photon is pretty close to a wave. But transforming an arbitrary mass into field/photon
energy does not fit the formalism!
The misconception of transforming mass into energy was based on the experimental findingthat an electron can be transformed into a gamma photon of 511keV. [7]
But for this you need a positron to complete the operation
Unluckily, also here, nature shows – most of the time - no symmetric decay of a free e+/e- “pair”
into two 511keV – Bra-Ket symmetric - photons.
Normally e+/e- undergo a binding reaction and do form out a positronium.
This introduces a secondary orbital momentum, which perturbs the decay.
Only e+/e- inside dense mass (in para state) can potentially undergo a symmetric 511keV decay.
But also there the 511keV is just a small peak and not the main event. See [7]fig. 7.9.
So nobody ever found that you generally can symmetrically split mass into two waves that
do conform with classic field models. This was a historical speculation only...[7] Yoshihiko Hatano Yosuke Katsumura A. Mozumder, Charged Particle and Photon Interactions with Matter Recent
Advances, Applications, and Interfaces, CRC Press Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4398-1180-1, 2011 Chapter VII -
Hello RobertBryant , good to have you back.
-
No particle with a claimed mass can move at light speed....
None of the cited papers says that. It's the massless electron's charge that moves at speed of light (Zitterbewegung).
Indeed, this explains the light speed limit and the very origin of the inertial mass.
Mass is not an "intrinsic" property of a particle but a consequence of its charge Zbw.
-------
Erroneous interpretations of the Dirac equation are the true "origin of the mess in physics".
-
so charge
Erroneous interpretations of the Dirac equation
Iits not just the equation but the theory and assumptions behind it,,,"
Thus in allowing negative-energy states, the theory gives something which
appears not to correspond to anything known experimentally, but which we
cannot simply reject by a new assumption.We must find some meaning for these states.
An examination of the behaviour of these states in an electromagnetic field
shows that they correspond to the motion of an electron with a positive
charge instead of the usual negative one - what the experimenters now call
a positron.One might, therefore, be inclined to assume that electrons in
negative-energy states are just positrons, but this will not do, because the
observed positrons certainly do not have negative energies.We can, however, establish ‘a connection between electrons in negative-energy states and
positrons, in a rather more indirect way.
We make use of the exclusion principle of Pauli, according to which
there can be only one electron in any state of motion. We now make the
assumptions that in the world as we know it, nearly all the states of negative
energy for the electrons are occupied, ..https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/dirac-lecture.pdf
etc usw zbw..:)
-
so charge
Iits not just the equation but the theory and assumptions behind it,,,"
etc usw zbw..:)
A special point of view on charge dynamic
https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0187v1.pdf
"Waves of Charge and Four Dimensional Analytic Functions"
"Basically, the paper concerns the generalization of the Cauchy-Riemann equations to spacetime, so (Hestenes, quote) “we can expect it to have a rich variety of solutions. The problem is to pick out those solutions with physical significance.” I could expect Hopfions, EVOs and so on. I write only the conclusions, skipping all the speculations and physical meanings that led me to this."""As I said, I write only the final results of the argument , skipping all the speculations that led me right here. I only say , as far as my notations are concerned , that a brief but exhaustive explanation can be found in a few, few pages, of [1 ]. Other interesting readings are in Bibliography. Of other avant-garde and more or less contested topics, EVO by Shoulders , Condensed Plasmoids , Ball Lightning etc I have found no trace in the official scientific literature, therefore I have not put them in the Bibliography. However, they can be
found on the Internet." -
It's the massless electron's charge that moves at speed of light (Zitterbewegung).
Indeed, this explains the light speed limit and the very origin of the inertial mass.
If you switch the side of your logic then you simply can see that in the rest frame of any particle the EM flux as usual moves at light speed and charge is at rest what confirms that charge is a topological effect. From the particle point of view everything is 100% clear. But most physicist lack a basic education in logic and just think in the way the learned it as children in the sand box.
Charge as defined by Maxwell and standard model cannot move at light speed as it needs a carrier. Charge paths cannot cross as charge is repulsive. Charge is never stable on a classic 3D torus without being coupled with mass as it is repulsive. Zitterbewegung is the result of topological charge that is induced outside the minimal Lagrangian (CT) of the strong force coupled EM flux that forms all particles including photons.
Did you know that no particle has a stable orbital momentum of h'/2 ? This has also been believed because of a lack in logic education. The magnetic moment of e,p just is random at any point in time and does not work like Bohrs sand box planet image.
Only in a field.,due to interaction, the moment axis is coupled and does precision around a claimed axes. Then the magnitude of h', h'/2 is OK.
-
Charge as defined by Maxwell and standard model cannot move at light speed as it needs a carrier.
Charge e and magnetic flux h/e are the two sides of the same coin. You cannot separate them at microscopic (Compton scale) level. The concept of "massive charged particles" is only an approximation that only works at macroscopic scale.
-
Charge e and magnetic flux h/e are the two sides of the same coin.
Except that one side of the coin is much smaller....99% of the mass is EM flux and about 1% is the induced charge coupling.
-
Except that one side of the coin is much smaller....99% of the mass is EM flux and about 1% is the induced charge coupling.
Electric and magnetic fields are the derivatives of the electromagnetic four potential in the four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. The mass is a consequence of the charge momentum mc=eA. The electron momentum is just the component of this momentum in the direction of electron velocity mv=eAv.
Newton law has a pure electromagnetic origin:
F = ma = m dv/dt = edAv/dt
-
four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.
A mainstream physics assumption...
Question for hyperbeings
Does Minkowski spacetime have ana and kata..... or is that just Euclidean Greek?
Four-dimensional space - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org -
Electric and magnetic fields are the derivatives of the electromagnetic four potential in the four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. The mass is a consequence of the charge momentum mc=eA. The electron momentum is just the component of this momentum in the direction of electron velocity mv=eAv.
Newton law has a pure electromagnetic origin:
F = ma = m dv/dt = edAv/dt
gio06 , you are probably familiar with the DTS idea of Cardone and the late Mignani, they sustain the Minkowski Spacetime is anisotropic, or can be made anisotropic by way of energy. I just mention it because you are using it as starting point.
I really am a mere spectator of this interesting discussion, having read a lot of different views I tend to see what are the parallels and incompatibilities between them.
Jürg’s ideas are mind bending, I had to read a lot of other material just to get enough of a grasp of what a 4 dimensional rotation means, but what is more impressive about them is their heuristic ability and the fact that it connects the so called forces as mere manifestations of the electromagnetism. I am not an advocate of his ideas as much as I have a thin understanding of their full implications, but find them intriguing enough to keep studying them as much as I can.
-
A mainstream physics assumption...
Also a commonsense assumption.
Definitely proton is charming :), even for mainstream
The intrinsic charm of the proton
-
Jürg’s ideas are mind bending, I had to read a lot of other material just to get enough of a grasp of what a 4 dimensional rotation means, but what is more impressive about them is their heuristic ability and the fact that it connects the so called forces as mere manifestations of the electromagnetism.
The electron's charge helicoidal trajectory can be described by two orthogonal rotations in the four dimensions (six planes) of Minkowski spacetime. One rotation is an ordinary rotation, while the second one is an hyperbolic rotation and is at origin of the relativistic mass increase. Both rotations can be encoded together in a single spinor (eight real values) of the spacetime algebra [Cl3,1(ℝ) Clifford Algebra]
-
Electric and magnetic fields are the derivatives of the electromagnetic four potential in the four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.
As I did note in "basics of physics" most physicists missed a class in basic logic and category theory. Further they never did think about the stability of their proposed solutions. All physics based on S3 (SO(3) x..) as a solution space is ridiculous. Flat surfaces cannot carry charge as there is no stable configuration. Also the missing of basic mechanics classes is obvious. All stable solutions must be based on a stable minimal Lagrangian surface. This implies 2DF models as Farhad Ghabussis https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Farhad-Ghaboussi did prove a long time ago.
One rotation is an ordinary rotation, while the second one is an hyperbolic rotation and is at origin of the relativistic mass increase.
This is nonsense logic. For hyperbolic rotations you have to provide the force equation. And as said no light speed allowed for an electron. Further if you couple two rotations this always leads to a oscillation along the third axis (from basic - advanced mechanics classes) also this equation must be provided. There is always an an exchange of energy among coupled rotating orbits!
Physics is not a simple mind business as most SM freaks make us claim.
Further all spaces used in SM are linear but the near field of e/p are not linear. May be once consult Jackson about when (far field only) you can use such SM like approaches.
-
Definitely proton is charming
Ciao Gio...Apropos nothing ..Your link is from June 1980?
however ,I do read with interest the latest 'charming' QCD revelation..from the mainstream Higgsers..
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.08372.pdf
"A toy PDF set at Q0 = √ 2 GeV is evolved up to Q = 100 GeV for equal values of the factorization and renormalization scales, Qf = Qr = Q. We show as representative results those corresponding to the total valence quark V and the quark singlet Σ distributions. Excellent agreement is found, in particular with PEGASUS which also perform QCD evolution"
Here are some views on renormalisation via a physicist who gave up on physics
I have reassured him that there is 'hope for physics' and invited him back into the fray,,
-
As I did note in "basics of physics" most physicists missed a class in basic logic and category theory. Further they never did think about the stability of their proposed solutions.
This is nonsense logic. For hyperbolic rotations you have to provide the force equation. And as said no light speed allowed for an electron.
Seems that you don't even read my answers in this thread. Good luck with your theories...
-
Display More
Ciao Gio...Apropos nothing ..Your link is from June 1980?
however ,I do read with interest the latest 'charming' QCD revelation..from the mainstream Higgsers..
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.08372.pdf
"A toy PDF set at Q0 = √ 2 GeV is evolved up to Q = 100 GeV for equal values of the factorization and renormalization scales, Qf = Qr = Q. We show as representative results those corresponding to the total valence quark V and the quark singlet Σ distributions. Excellent agreement is found, in particular with PEGASUS which also perform QCD evolution"
Here are some views on renormalisation via a physicist who gave up on physics
I have reassured him that there is 'hope for physics' and invited him back into the fray,,
I fully agree with Feynman and Dirac citations on renormalization!
-
Well, you highlighted the problem here between some "protagonists" for a new physic.
Big tongue small ears.
We can't compare Solvay events with LenrForum tchats..
Seems that you don't even read my answers in this thread. Good luck with your theories...
