Posts by JohnDuffield

Quote from Dr Richard

Looks like we have to go way back in time to unravel these mysteries obscured by QM. What about Phat photons of Pharis Williams is this another QM phudge?

I read this: "A new theoretical development based upon Weyl’s gauge field theory predicts that photon energies are quantized with the energy given by N²hν. Such quantization of photon energy changes the character of the photon from the Einstein photon that does not have a quantum number. Photon energy that includes a quantum number means that for a given energy the frequency may have more than one value". That isn't like any photon I've ever heard about. IMHO the E=hν is there because the dimensiontality of action h can be expressed as energy x time or momentum x distance. I thought action h applies to all photons because they all have the same amplitude of 3.86 x 10^-13 metres. Which is why you can only make an electron with a wavelength of 2.426 x 10^-12 metres. I think of it as something like plucking a guitar with a constant pluck regardless of where your fingers are on the frets. There are no electrons with a mass of 4, 9, 16, 25... times the mass of an ordinary electron. By the way the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. Because a wave in a closed path opposes change-in-motion just as a wave in an open path opposes it. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478 by Martin van der Mark and Gert (not the Nobel) 't Hooft.

Electromagnetic spectrum image thanks to NASA

Quote from Dr Richard

...I think theoretical physics needs a good kick up the backside to resolve all four forces into a coherent theory which would account for LENR phenomena too and give us a working hypothesis. Some hope!

I like to think that I know how they work. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread on that?

.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The electron seems to be a special photon with a locked in wave. If I transport the proton inner force equation to the electron frame, then the result is that the electron magnetic mass is not bound to a radius. That's also what experiments tell.

Only a more fundamental approach than current physics uses could solve that issue.

Within the framework we use the electron cannot be fully explained as it is partly defined by an axiom called charge! As said from a logical point of view it is nonsense to find a model based on one axiom to finally explain the axiom.

Nevertheless, within the improved SO(4) framework we can give the electron the known structure it has, based on the electron g-factor, what helps to solve some old problems.

Structure & logic is the basis of all theory (math). It looks like many people in the field missed that class.

Display More

The problem is that current physics claims that photons don't interact with photons, when they do. It's called gamma-gamma pair production, it's been demonstrated at SLAC, see gamma rays create matter just by plowing into laser light. That concerns the Breit-Wheeler process which dates from 1932. But quantum electrodynamics will tell you this:

“From classical electrodynamics we know that EM waves pass through each other without any interference. From Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) we know that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they don’t carry charge, but they can interact through higher order processes: a photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion/anti-fermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple”.

It's garbage. So is the notion that creation and annihilation operators cause the gamma photons pop out of existence whilst the electron and the positron pop into existence. Again, remember what Schrödinger said on page 26 of quantization as a problem of proper values, part II: "let us think of a wave group of the nature described above, which in some way gets into a small closed ‘path’, whose dimensions are of the order of the wave length”. The gamma photons interact and change direction, that's all. From an open path to a closed path. Then each is turned into a standing wave with a standing field, to which we apply the name "charge". The electron g factor is 2.002319. It's twice what it should be in classical mechanics because the wave is wrapped round twice in a spin 1/2 "trivial knot" configuration. The wavelength of a 511 keV photon is 2.426 x 10^-12 metres. Divide this by 2π and what you get is 3.86 x 10^-13 metres:

Many people in the field took the class, but then they decided to ignore it, because Schrödinger was their rival. So was Charles Galton Darwin, who wrote a 1927 paper on the vector-wave electron. They also ignored the Born-Infeld model in the 1930s. That featured a unitarian standpoint, which assumes only one physical entity, the electromagnetic field, wherein “matter particles are considered as singularities of the field”.

GNUFDL image by AllenMcC, see Wikipedia commons and the Wikipedia vector field article

Quote from Arun Luthra

In section 3.5 they upgrade it to a torus with big radius r_e and small radius r_0. This was solved approximately by Bergman and Wesley 1990. I don't think it works in an exact sense because the outer part of the ring is moving faster than the inner part of the ring.

Is there a favored, exact Zitterbewegung geometry?

I think the favoured geometry is spherical because the electron has no measurable electric dipole. You start with a ring, then you upgrade it to a torus. Then you "inflate" the torus to a horn torus, then you inflate it further to a spindle-sphere torus:

Then it starts to look something like a typical electron depiction:

Note however that it has no surface. The electron's field is what it is, and it doesn't stop abruptly.

Quote from Arun Luthra

In 2010, Richard Wayte solved the classical electron problem (massless, charge moving at c, EM fields having electron mass energy, static charge and static currents to have zero radiation) with general relativity equations. Probably some of you are aware of this one, I've seen a similar picture of it posted recently in the ICCF22 thread juxtaposed with condensed plasmoid pictures.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…6_A_MODEL_OF_THE_ELECTRON

Are there other solutions or is Wayte's model the gold standard at this point?

I don't think I've ever seen Wayte's paper before. I read it and thought it was partly correct. The first paper I read about this was written by John Williamson and Martin van der Mark in 1991. They had trouble getting it published, so it didn't see the light of day until 1997. It's called Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? Also see Qiu-Hong Hu’s 2005 paper The nature of the electron:

Quote from Wyttenbach

The four potential is a time dependent potential as Maxwell equations contain time derivatives...

The trouble with Maxwell's equations is that they aren't really Maxwell's equations - Heaviside "improved" them. Nevertheless you can glean something from them. See for example Faraday’s law, ∇ × E = − ∂B/∂t. It doesn't mean what some people think it means. The curl of E is the time rate of change of B. Because E is the spatial derivative of four-potential, and B is the time derivative. I've used a canoe analogy to try explain this.

See the Wikipedia electromagnetic radiation article and note this: “the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time”. The orthogonal sinusoidal electric and magnetic waves in the depictions are misleading. The electric wave is the spatial derivative of the electromagnetic wave, whilst the magnetic wave is the time derivative. For an analogy, imagine you’re in a canoe at sea. Imagine something like an oceanic swell wave or tsunami comes at you. Let’s say it’s a 10m high sinusoidal hump of water without a trough. As the wave approaches, your canoe tilts upward.

The degree of tilt denotes E, whilst the rate of change of tilt denotes B. When you’re momentarily at the top of the wave, your canoe is horizontal and has momentarily stopped tilting, so E and B are zero. Then as you go down the other side, the situation is reversed.

I don't think Maxwell's equations tell you much about the electron. However I think Maxwell's 1871 paper Remarks on the Mathematical Classification of Physical Quantities does. He drew this picture:

The convergence is what's typical drawn to depict an electric field. The curl is what's typically drawn to depict a magnetic field. You have to combine them to depict an electromagnetic field. Here's my version of the above:

And here's a picture that's akin to the strip depiction in post 58:

Quote from gio06

Not exactly. In the proposed Zitterbewegung model the elementary charge e is always associated with a magnetic flux Φ_M:

Φ_M=h/e

That's because electron spin is real. The evidence for that is the circular motion of the electron in a uniform magnetic field. The positron goes the other way because it has the opposite chirality. See Hans Ohanian's 1984 paper what is spin? He said “the means for filling the gap have been at hand since 1939, when Belinfante established that the spin could be regarded as due to a circulating flow of energy”. Also see what Schrödinger said on page 26 of quantization as a problem of proper values, part II: "let us think of a wave group of the nature described above, which in some way gets into a small closed ‘path’, whose dimensions are of the order of the wave length”. I think of it as something like this:

You wrap a sinusoidal wave into a closed chiral spin ½ path, and the result is a phase-invariant standing-wave Möbius-like spinor configuration. The photon isn't a flat sinusoidal strip of course, and nor is the electron a Möbius strip. But note how the Möbius strip is the same width all round. I think the analogy is pretty good. What was a sinusoidal field variation is now an all-round standing field.

Check out to Dirac’s belt and William Kingdon Clifford's space theory of matter. IMHO Maxwell was ahead of his time with his theory of molecular vortices.

PS: I couldn't see inside the book, but IMHO what this says is right: https://www.researchgate.net/p…uations_and_Occam's_Razor. It says "only one fundamental physical entity is sufficient to describe the origin of electromagnetic fields, charges and currents: the electromagnetic four-potential". The spatial derivative is E, the time derivative is B.

Hi. Is there anybody there? Somebody was talking about me. I was hoping to talk physics. Anybody here know Doug Coulter?