Thread: The Nature of the Electron

The Nature of the Electron






Abstract
There has been for a number of years now, an idea that the electron is in fact a sphere with a very small radius and inside this sphere is distributed the momentum of photon energy. In effect, this particular model would state that the electron is in fact just a form of ''trapped light.'' This was first speculated upon by Dirac and was continued with depth by Schrodinger on the phenomenon known as zitter motion. In this paper, I have taken the theory further, not only to reconcile the original idea's that the classical (or perhaps) semi-classical electron has a mass of electromagnetic nature and that the gravitational charge (the inertial mass) is in fact intrinsically-related to the same electromagnetic features. To do this, I have had to read for many years now, the theories of times past which involved the photon configuration inside of particles - Lloyd Motz was the first to propose a gravitational charge to a particle and even speculated on bound photon particles in a type of orbital motion; the original idea's brought forth in this paper is how to think of the gravitational charge in terms of the electromagnetic field and we will also study the implications of certain equations under the same investigative field. To make short, the electron is taken in this paper, as a fluctuation of either bound or single photons following toroidal or other topological paths in a dense curved spacetime. We will also propose that the idea Motz brought forward, that the gravitational constant takes on extremely large values inside of such particles can actually play the role of a Poincare stress for the electron and to finish off, we will also study what it means to talk about the spin of an electron.







Because the site limits characters to 10k per post, I will post this in the parts in comes in

Part 1
The Model of our Electron Theory


The nature of mass is a mystery to some, even with the hailed discovery of the Higgs Boson. Perhaps a Higgs field describes how mass is given to a particle but what if there was more to it? What if mass has a very important meaning outside of the Higgs Field, something associated to a dynamical process inside of say, an electron itself?


Electromagnetic theories of mass first began in the late 1800's by Sir Joseph J. Thomson in an attempt to explain the origin of the inertial mass of the electron. Since then, famous scientists such as Max Abraham, Hendrik Lorentz, Oliver Heaviside (who contributed greately to the first respectable models) and even Paul A. M. Dirac had pondered the electromagnetic nature of electrons. Basically, (among many puzzling questions concerning the electron) was that ''how much of the electron mass is contributed by an electromagnetic field?''


As I said, there was actually many questions surrounding the electron, one of the other puzzles was that the electron's self energy should in fact be infinite if it was treated non-classically! Another problem persisted... the electrostatic forces inside of an electron should effectively rip it apart. Some kind of balancing force was expected to exist in the electron to cancel these tremendous forces. These non-electromagnetic forces capable of cancelling out the electrostatic forces began to be called ''Poincare Stresses'' after their originator Henri Poincare.


The real problem later that was soon ''assumed to be fixed'' was that the electron is considered a pointlike particle up to lengths of about ... very small indeed but is it really a pointlike system and why is this a problem?


Well, we most scientists are convinced that the electron is a pointlike system and that speaking of it as not is a heracy of science. But there is an unusual problem with thinking of the electron as a pointlike system and that resides in an equation famous to classical physics:





The equation basically says, if then the energy of the electron goes to infinity!


Infinities are strange things, none have ever been observed in nature, so you may take this to mean that the equation is wrong. But that requires on to be biased that non-classical electrodynamics completely runs the show and that renormalization techniques can solve this problem. Or one can argue, that it is actually indicating particles are not truly pointlike and that is the stance I take in this work and that many today still consider.


The very first intelligible and promising model of an electron based on having a non-zero radius came in the Ref 1. Not only did these scientists find values which where very close and fitting to an electron but they also attempted to solve the problem of why particles appear to be pointlike. They solved it using a scaling technique involving energy of electrons in collision experiments. In a easier way to imagine this, basically electrons appear to be pointlike up to a certain threshold then any attempts to measure a radius for an electron become ineffective. Similar idea's where used for strings in string theory, where particles are actually 1-dimesionally extended objects.


In their model, albeit, not an original idea per se, was that the electron was really a particle with an internal (instrinsic) momentum of a photon caught up in a toroidal topology... a pathway if you like inside of the electron which gave it the features of charge and mass. They proposed as many had before them, that there was actually experimental evidence supporting this: in the form of a special type of decay process. When an electron comes into contact with an antielectron (positron) they release gamma photon energy





Two photons of energy are released in this decay process. In fact, all matter which interacts with it's antiparticle release photon energy which may extend the theory to mean that all matter is in fact trapped forms of light. This actually has some very important implications if true, not only about discussing the structure of elementary particles but also implications about how the most early stages of the universe came about, which we will cover much later.


Before this paper (ref 1) models of bound photons had been discussed by scientists at various points in our history, which came to be called ''Preon'' particles. They may even be pointlike in nature which create other subatomic particles. The photon more or less can be considered a pointlike particle, even though it has a wavelength. That's a much more conplicated issue.


Lloyd Motz, who was an American astronomer and cosmologist with a keen interest in gravity physics, began to describe elementary particles as bound pairs of photons, similar to a cooper pair only that the difference is that photons are in fact massless particles. But bound photons not only would cancel out the electric charge of a system but he speculated at the time that it could give rise to spin itself. He used this model consecutively to talk about the structure of neutrino's. In this work, we are not going to discuss the nature of other particles, instead we are going to focus on the electron.


One particular part of his model involved describing mass of particles as a charge itself on the system, just like how an electron has an electric charge by moving in an electromagnetic field, the mass of an electron was also a charge on the system; the problem I suffered for quite a number of years was whether there was a direct analogy... ie. Is the mass of a particle then a charge gained by moving in a gravitational field?


Gravity and the field itself is such a troublesome thing in physics at the moment. Not only does it appear to be significantly smaller by many magnitudes than the other four forces of nature but it also differs from the other forces that the force itself is not carried by a mediator particle. For instance, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so what is the gravitational force mediated by? The speculation was that a field of ''gravitons'' was responsible for transmitting a gravitational signal from one place to another... but alas none have ever been found. In fact, the search for the fundamental mediator of gravity has been pretty much given up for not many scientists today believe there is even one.


Instead, gravity was a pseudoforce, like the Coriolis force. Something experienced by a system in an inertial frame of reference. Of course, General Relativity which was formulated by Albert Einstein showed us that it was instrinsically related to the fabric of space and time and that objects accelerating in their frames of reference would not be able to tell whether they where falling or elevating. But what is gravity at the fundamental level?


As I said, for many years I struggled to find an answer for myself why then there was not a complete analogy between the electric charge of a moving particle in an electromagnetic field and that with a mass charge moving in a gravitational field. The answer finally came to me by realizing that if the gravitational force wasn't actually a real force (ie. ficticious force) then it seems that mass had to come about another way. It can be as I found, still valuable to speak of the gravitational field and think of the particles charge of mass as something related to the curvature of spacetime; and this is why...


If the electron is really just a photon caught up in a very small confined toroidal topology then we must be talking about the photon following geodesics inside of the particle itself; this must mean that the photon is travelling in a very small curved space and time. To talk about this subject requires that we must open our minds and take an imaginary journey into the interior of the electron, with a few added bonus thought-experiments.

Part 2
The Gravitational Charge




Explaining why we can talk about a gravitational charge and the origin of the idea behind it due to Schwinger, comes from a theory concerning a unit of electric and magnetic charge. The equation he first used to describe this was a quantization condition





It seems to say that plays the role of a magnetic charge - this basically squares the charge on the left handside, which is important as you will see in the equation describing the charge of the gravitational mass.


My very first understanding of mass as being treated as a charge as I explained in the previous part, came from Lloyd Motz (ref 2). In his paper, he calls the gravitational charge (squared),





This equation has had... huge implications in the study of elementary particle physics. We cannot cover them all of course, but to give you some idea, the expression appears all over classical physics and even cosmological physics involving celestial objects. It can even be applied to the very small of course. The other side of the equation, the expression appears all over electromagnetic theory of physics... I give no justice to either quantities but you can take my word for it, they are very much used. He get's this charge, or should I say, the charge had been obtained from a Weyl Principle of Gauge Invariance which led to the relationship.


Motz explains that there is a uniform gravitational charge distribution throughout the electron. He also further adds that





is a quantization condition on the charge . So how will we start to describe our semi-classical electron? First of all, it has a radius, this is related to many equations which I will feature in this paper. It is taken however that it may not be of the same magnitude what is known, as the classical electron radius





So our general radius will be a little smaller than this. We will also talk about how the electromagnetic features of this gravitational arise - so in regards to the gravitational charge we will state that it is a fully-electromagnetic feature of photons confined within the electron. But first, we need to get some facts of our model electron straight.






Part 3
The Electric and Gravitational Charge Distribution


The gravitational charge and the electric charge is related by the Heaviside Relationship





where is the permittivity. Permittivity just describes how much resistence that a dynamic system experiences when there is an applied electric field in a medium. So as you can see, the electric charge doesn't exactly equal the gravitational charge per se (which is why) throughout all of this work you will see a coefficient factor of .


I found that the energy and the radius of a particle can also be set directly equal to the gravitational charge squared





The gravitostatic equation which relates the energy to the gravitational charge then might be taken as





This is a gravitational charge analogue of the mass contributed by an electromagnetic field





(So we assume the same coefficient of 1/2 attached to the equations). The mass of the system at rest is therefore found as





As Wein had noticed, if the gravitational mass was an electromagnetic phenomenon (or even in part electromagnetic), then there must exist a proportionality between the electromagnetic energy, the inertial mass and the gravitational mass. Later in our history due to Einstein, it appears that the gravitational mass and the inertial mass has been shown to be pretty much equivalent in all tests made.


The attraction of the field between two bodies is therefore given as





So far this is a very basic way of integrating the relationship of the gravitational charge into theories which considered these forms electromagnetic in nature. The only way to interpret how we can change from one system to the next is by recognizing that not only is the charge proportional to but that also the gravitational charge may be an electromagnetic manifestation as well.


Since we assume the gravitational and electric charges are uniformly distributed inside of the horizon radius of the electron, we therefore conclude that there is also a distribution of the electric field. The distribution of electric field inside the electron can be seen as related also to the gravitational charge! The average of this field is,

Part 4
The Electron Spin and The Induced Photon Charge


A much more complicated issue, but over the years I have found ways to better explain the model. The radius in the previous equations has multiple meanings but instrinsically the same... if there ever was an oxymoronic statement.


In the model electron, we adopt the theory that the electron is really a photon tied up in a toroidal topology, the radius therefore is a degree of freedom inside of the electron. The degree of freedom can be thought of as a wavelength or even a mean radius of transport for the photon system.

What might we mean about an internal degree of freedom noted as the radius of curvature? A volume of radius is given as;





You can relate the Gaussian curvature to the Newtonian Constant which assuming, takes on the large value of and is distributed evenly throughout the volume. While just recently realizing that Motz had suggested in his paper that there is in fact a cancelation of the forces. The charge distributed throughout the volume has a self-energy of order





He notes that the electric charge will cancel out the same magnitude recognized as being distributed as . I independantly came to the idea of the gravitational stresses in the interior of particles as playing the role of a Poincare stress. I am not quite sure whether Motz was implying such a stress, but it is clear that he saw both the gravitational and the electrostatic forces to be equal in size. He doesn't seem to point out a problem of fine tuning, but I have said that if this is the case we are surely talking about something which is oddly finely tuned to be in nature.


What is interesting is that he proposes an internal degree of freedom for a bound photon particle both traversing a path around a common center. His idea wasn't given in any great mathematical detail, but he did say it could account for the spin of particles .


The notion of such internal degree's of freedom brings us to the subject of zitter motion, which was a mathematically-predicted (and only just recently) varified motion of the electron. Something about the electron was moving in a zig-zag like fashion as it moved through space and time. Recently, David Hestenes, a wonderful scientist and great mathematician proved that the motion can be attributed to an electron periodic clock as some kind of intrinsic effect. Probably careful not to mention a subatomic particle being mentioned, but it has been noted in many papers over the years that the zitter motion can be attributed to the motion of photons inside of electrons. Zitter motion is therefore in very non-technical terminology, is a slowed down photon. The photon which creates an electron slows down and takes on the appearance of a mass because it is following a curved and yet tight path in spacetime.


There are numerous ways we can talk about this trajectory; one way is by first knowing that the momentum of a photon is





Taking the integral to and from the helicities characterized as the freedom spoke of from the paper in (ref 1) describing the toroidal topology, you can talk about the angular momentum (spin) of electrons in very a very simple mathematical way





where is the mean radius of transport and is the sum of the total angular momentum for the photons. You can actually obtain this quantity in a similar way by recognizing that the energy of an electron is





and you reach the same conclusion as my integral equation by combining the mass and radius





(ref 3.)


In the bound photon model, there is however a fundamental difference to the free-space case photon following a toroidal topology. A bound pair of photons' angular momentum cancel out and actually give no contribution to the over-all system.
As Motz informs us, that the photon contributes a gravitational mass we should first assume that this is the gravitational charge - a photon in this case will experience a charge if following a curved geodesic. Since this would simply be the gravitational charge divided by the compton wavelength, this is given as


.


Motz notes that this is the same thing as:





he states that since the energy is then from the expression we find the usual relationship and takes this as meaning the gravitational field inside of the particle is responsible for the existence of the photons. If this is true, the gravitational field must in some way couple to the photons; in fact, not only do the photons couple to the ''gravitational forces'' but they may even be called a very special kind of particle, called a graviphoton. A graviphoton appears as a photon but is an excitation of the gravitational field. If the gravitational field is responsible for the existence of the photon then we could assume they are indeed a special type of graviphoton. Not only this, but the gravitational force inside of the particle is considered very large (as we have covered before).


The geodesic spoke of in which our gravitationally-induced photon is moving in, can be thought of a line element (Weyl). Motz recognizes how important it is to talk about a charge if a photon is following a curved path in space http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.../1966/motz.pdf . The line element is





The path of a photon is well-known to be but for a bound system, you would get two values of the inverse radius. In our single photon model, albeit simpler, we must understand then in our former case. In this case, it is also much easier to think of it trapped in a toroidal topology. A toroidal structure is given by a length





Here is the wavelength of the photon. So, as we see, it is possible the photon couples to the gravitational field inside of the electron... How do we describe such a thing?
A coupling of the system to the gravimagnetic forces are achieved by a cross product (this explanation can be found in ref 2. or by work by Sciama ''On the Origin of Inertia'')





You get the coupling field by obtaining the Coriolis field and dividing it by the gravitational charge . This is how a rotating sphere couples to the external fields. Describing the internal framework, you need to talk about the motion of photons inside of electrons.


I am yet to find an adequate way of describing the system in such a way.

Part 5
The Fundamental Equation of the Gravitational Charge


It is one thing saying 'gravitational charge' is what makes up inertial mass, but what is the gravitational charge reliant on? What is it in nature which creates the charge? We have seen that the photon follow tight spacetime curvature inside of the electron, this creates a charge and the appearance of a mass, but what are the fundamental relationships which make the gravitational charge itself?


Like all important fundamental dynamical processes in nature, physics often described them in terms of the constants of nature, such as the speed of light, permittivity, permeability, the gravitational constant ect. The CODATA elementary charge does exactly this. The point of the equation about to be shown, is to attempt to describe charge as a ratio of important fundamental constants


(1)


We can be really theoretical about this and create a simple equation which will do the same thing for the gravitational charge. We first of all recall the relationship between the elementary charge and the gravitational charge





Square equation (1) and set them equal, this gives





Solving for the gravitational charge and cancelling out some factors we have a fundamental relationship for the gravitational charge





What is the interepretation of a dubious looking equation like this? I noticed a few things. First of all, in physics it is recognized that the angular momentum component of a system is conserved through the fine structure constant





Actually this is a special quantization condition. We should notice the positive and negative eigenvalues of increment and we may therefore imagine a same condition on our gravitational charge equation





This means that angular momentum is conserved in our definition of the gravitational charge itself. Notice also that our charge is proportionally dependant on the electric and magnetic resistance constants , something you might expect if mass itself was an electromagnetic phenomenon. The magnetic field has three components, in (ref 1.) these components are given as









Perhaps more importantly, but an even odder interpretation lies in Motz' definition of the source of the gravitational field.





This is of course analogous to Coulomb's Force .


He notes, that the gravitational charge will be the source of the gravitational field





If anyone has noticed, this is actually analogy of the magnitude of the electric field which is created by a single charge





Another one to note perhaps, would be the appearance of the gravimagnetic field, given by Motz as .





This is actually the gravitational analogue of the equation





which describes the definition of the electric field. So the gravitational case, must be the definition of the gravimagnetic field or something akin to it since





is also





I know this because I calculated it (ref. 4). Anyway... drifted away slightly from the main theme, if the gravitational charge is indeed the source of the gravitational field then somehow the constants which makes our fundamental equation





Is also part of the electromagnetic ensemble which is the source of the gravitational field. It seems totally erroneous to think of the source of the gravitational field as an electromagnetic phenomenon simply because, on our every day to day lives, gravity is in fact around magnitudes smaller than the electrostatic force. So how can one be the source of the other? The answer lies in the fact that the gravitational force and electric force are of pretty much the same magnitude inside of particles and this is where our next part has led us.





[edit] note*

(Some of these expressions by Motz are in Gaussian units). Many may require factors in a form more understandable for the text.

Part 6
The Gravitational Constant taking the role of the Poincare Stress


As was explained in the beginning of the work, one of the main problems of early electromagnetic theories of classical electrons is that internal electrostatic forces would rip them apart. To achieve some kind of solution to this problem, Henri Poincare suggested there was in fact some kind of internal non-electromagnetic energy which cancelled this out.


It was unknown for some time what kind of stress this could be and it wasn't until I read the work of Motz (ref 2.) that one of his speculations was that the gravitational constant took on a very large value inside of the particle





It occurred to me, even though Motz had never suggested it, that this could play the role of the Poincare stress but it brings into question a matter of fine tuning. Nevertheless, the gravitational field inside the particle could be strong enough to cancel out exactly the electrostatic forces. For this to be true, must take on a very large value of .

Part 6
Uncertainty Relationship for the Gravitational Charge


To rehash our memory quickly on the toroidal structure of the electron, the photon follows a length/curved trajectory inside the particle. The length of a thing can be given as





If is measures in seconds, then is measures in meters, then . To measure it we need a clock with an uncertainty of can be no larger than . Time and energy uncertainty says the product of and can be no less than





so that





which implies a relationship





through the equivalence of





There is then a relationship to the uncertainty in the energy and the uncertainty in the length of the system. A correction to this inequality must be made then where the length can be considered ,





The physical meaning of this is that the internal energy flux is bound by the maximal uncertainty in the mean transport of radius which may take the role of the wavelength but we have a correction order.





As the paper http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf recites, the limitation of the speed of light means that only paths within the radius can provide a contribution of inertial energy (mass) to the system. The uncertainty relationship then to satisfy the toroidal system is





Shows us that the energy depends on the varying uncertainty of the compton wavelength up to a maximal radius of transport. The energy is also therefore conserved through the fine structure constant if one applied the correction.


This relationship might be more important than one realizes as even Motz deduced that there was an uncertainty relationship between the mass of a particle and it's radius. The more you attempted to measure the radius of the particle, the more uncertain it's mass became and vice versa. He spoke about this relationship in (ref. 2) but I will quickly cover it.


He showed that you can equate the Compton wavelength to the Gaussian curvature where was the proper density and is the Schwarzschild constant. It can obtain the equation





Introducing the radius of curvature, which would equate to our use of the curvature of transport this would be, keeping in mind that the radius of a three dimensional hypersphere is you obtain





and from this he states that one gets





He says that one can look upon this as an uncertainty relationship where the mass term and the radius anticommute. In a similar fashion, I have shown above there is an uncertainty relationship with the internal radius of transport and it's gravitational charge.

Part 7
The Fine Structure Constant and it's Relationships to the Gravitational Charge


We've actually not only just seen a relationship of the fine structure constant to the gravitational charge, but we also saw one previously where we described the gravitational charge as a ratio of fundamental constants. There are in fact a few more important one's I wish to discuss.


The fine structure constant, any fine structure constant, determines the field strength of interaction between particles. It is such a mysterious number, it crops up in physics all the time and was made famous to the public by a number of notable physicists but perhaps most notable of all was Feymann who discussed it in a number of his lectures.


I remember a physicist once saying, ''to unify physics, you not only need to show how the workings of nature in terms of the fine structure but you also need to be able to explain why the fine structure is!''


Of course, that is an attempt my feeble mind could never grasp, but as I have done throughout the work so far was showing subtle relationships between the fine structure constant and the investigation into the gravitational charge. Now we will get straight into the rest of them I found.

Let's consider the phase of the photon in the toroidal model (ref. 1).


In the proper frame, the phase of both the orbital rotation and the internal photon is incidently





where is the proper time where





The phase of the internal photon can be written as





The gravitational fine structure constant raises it's beautiful head from this equation in the form





thus naturally





Therefore the phase of the photon appears to be related to the gravitational fine structure of our system.


Suppose we can talk about the electric flux and magnetic flux inside a particle of an area enclosed by a sphere (also known as the horizon of the mean radius of transport) we might have





and





knowing that








and the relationship describing fine structure





One can meld these equations together to reach two interesting relationships





and the square of the gravitational charge





Let's just quickly explain what the electric and magnetic flux are. Doing so might make us realize that the gravitational charge is manifestly an electromagnetic property (something we have been hinting at for quite a bit now).


In short and simple terminology, the electric and magnetic flux is the amount of electromagnetic field which penetrates a given area... in our case, we are assuming a fundamental length of transport within an area.


The point however of the two equations obtained revealing the fine structure constant and the gravitational charge is that to solve for them in terms of and that the ratio and the product become independent of unit representation. According to the author in the reference below (ref 5.), he claims that this is a verification that both and have the same dimensions.


However, the author may not have sufficiently known the full interpretation of his equations since there is no mention of the gravitational charge through equivelance





Thinking of the gravitational charge as something to do with electromagnetic field is not a new approach in this work, since we have attempted to describe the electric field as related proportionally to the gravitational charge before. But thinking of it in terms of the fluxes is a new approach and certainly an interesting insight if the propositions above are correct.


And perhaps the most interesting relationship I found takes us back to the zitter motion, that internal motion predicted from quantum mechanics.


As it was said in the first intelligible paper of a photon model of an electron (ref 1.) http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf states that there are striking analogies of the Dirac solution of equations describing zitter motion (whom later) David Hestenes showed that it could be considered an ''internal dynamic'' clock. The instantaneous velocity eigenvalues can be pictorially imagined as the two interlooping path which the photon takes in the toroid. They are actually light-like helices of which defined the maximal degree of freedom for the mean radius of transport. I found a way we can talk about it mathematically.


The system of coupled equations describing a particle system comes in the form











As Hestenes points out in his paper http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-conte...1bae814fb4f9e9 the zitter motion radius is given as





where the beautiful mathematics is revealed where one notices the potential depends on the charge to mass ratio





(ref 6.)


Now, the toroid model (ref. 1) required a tweaked fine structure constant as





This means we can represent Hestenes equation





can be rewritten with a fine structure coefficient





we will state





which means the potential can be rewritten as





It appears like an elegant way to integrate the work of the toroidal model into the zitter motion they said had striking similarities. This is but another discovered. But perhaps what is more insightful is that we arrive at a similar conclusion involving the spin as we did in part 5, that the spin is again conserved through the fine structure in this particular potential equation.






FINAL THOUGHTS


The electron was at one time considered to be a classical system with a sphere like structure. Later, it was then suggested this internal structure had some dynamics about it... but like the sweat of the brow of a young lad, it had been swiped away by modern non-classical physics, replacing the electron strictly as a pointlike particle. And that seemed to be the end of that.


But it wasn't... Years later two scientists came together and provided a model of the electron which had an internal structure - one which involved a photon bound in a very tight toroidal topological path in spacetime and also fixing the question of why we still detect them as being pointlike.


Even with these latest efforts, which was a number of years ago now, the idea that matter is just trapped forms of light, hasn't caught off well in the physics acadamia; though we cannot say it hasn't been heard. One thing scientists are trained in is to not be biased about an experiment but it appears unfortunately the testing of electrons down to scales which ''appear'' pointlike is the cornerstone of the problem.


If electrons where not actually pointlike, this wouldn't change physics such that we would have to rewrite everything. Electrons still behave pointlike afterall, so we would just need to understand it as a correction order written in the paper alluded to (ref 1.). Perhaps the hardest struggle is that describing particles as pointlike is much easier than trying to describe them in classical terms, but then not all theories are completely classical. It is entirely probable to describe an electron and have your money's worth in classical and non-classical parts.


Perhaps in time, scientists will come back to this question and start asking them again to find new solutions which seem to make sense in the strange world of quantum mechanics. Certainly, at least my paper shows that scientists have taken it seriously and some nice and maybe interesting tweaks can be found in the equations once describing them as fact.


Maybe is for another day though.

References


Ref 1. http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf
Ref 2. http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.../1971/motz.pdf
http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.../1966/motz.pdf


Ref 3. You can in fact get the classical electron velocity from this as





Combining that with the electron energy equation we obtain





Thus





then there is a fine structure relationship





Ref 4.


The Lorentz force is of course and to refresh our minds, the Coriolis force is (where we are omitting the cross products). What is interesting is if you set them equal,





(setting these two quantities equal with each other should not be a surprise, since the Coriolis force is a type of gravimagnetic field)


cancel the linear velocities and divide the gravitational charge on both sides you get





Ref 5. http://arxiv.org/vc/hep-ph/papers/0306/0306230v2.pdf
Ref 6. To note, is the chosen notation by Hestenes describing the electromagnetic field which in mathematical jargon, is a bivector. You can see this from his work on spacetime algebra http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/ZBWinQM15**.pdf .
External Ref. http://www.electronspin.org/electron.pdf

Can I ask why you have not submitted this to a peer-reviewed journal?

My limited experience with electrons, I've found them to be quite pessimistic.

Also see [1206.0620] On the Wave Character of the Electron

That's a beautiful paper farsight and adds intelligible discussion to the premise in my own paper that the electron is a massless charge, that the gravitational charge is something we observe from purely electromagnetic effects within the structure of the electron.

The key to the model of the charge however must assume for a classical particle that the Newtonian Constant takes on the role of the Poincare stress. That I am certain of. Because if there is a structure we'd need to solve why it isn't blown apart by electrostatic repulsion.

Originally Posted by Strange

Can I ask why you have not submitted this to a peer-reviewed journal?

Never thought it was quality enough. I believe in my assertions though. The paper is quite simple. Gives just a basic overview of my idea's concerning the subject.

Originally Posted by Farsight

Also see [1206.0620] On the Wave Character of the Electron

The paper has definitely given me some idea's. I like how they have taken the classical approach by describing the interior of the electron as a synchrotron radiation, that is when a unit of radiation followed a curved geodesic in spacetime - which is exactly how I model the electron in my own approach. They have however provided a much sturdier mathematical ground and proving it very well.

Well, not exactly Geo. What synchrotron radiation is, is when a charged particle is following a curved geodesic will emit radiation similar to the Larmor effect, but the electron is really a massless charge following a geodesic.

A moving charge creates a current. So one might even think of a photon following a tight toroidal curve in spacetime creates a charge by possessing an intrinsic current. Remember, the electric current is actually caused by moving charges. The photon per se is not charged, but following a curved toroid it will have a charge and therefore the internal structure of the electron will have current. On the fundamental scale, right inside the interior of the electron, the magnetic moment can be attributed to the toroidal trajectory as was seen in ref 1. The most simplest way to describe the magnetic moment would actually be



where is the mean radius of transport for our intrinsic photon and the part describes it's momentum. The presence of such a magnetic moment [must] and I strenuously say [must] involve a circulating charge.

What is interesting is that the zitter motion (which can be fully attributed to the dynamical circulating massless charge) is inversely proportional to the frequency (ref 6.) such that





and that the frequencies are related by





where is the electromagnetic field. We know this relationship to be true because in the toroid model, the fine structure is calculated as





we will state the square root on the charge to mass term as





which defines the relationship

Thus one can even say that the fine structure constant in



is actually an important quantity when the equations begins to describe how zitter frequency and the radius vary with interaction (ref 1. below) so that when mass is increased by an interaction term (potential) the frequency increases and the radius decreases. This must happen to maintain the speed of light.


http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-conte..._time_essa.pdf

David Hestenes has even showed how the potential (with my inclusion of the fine structure for the toroid), is actually the same thing as the zeeman interaction term

It is then perhaps not such a mystery why equations I investigated showed that the angular momentum (spin) was conserved in the fine structure constant, since it seems to carry on to splitting energies in the zeeman effect. The difference with this is that the interaction term involves the tweaked fine structure constant which was my attempt to unify the intelligible model of the toroidal electron photon, with the inclusion of zitter motion.

When an atom is placed in a magnetic field, its fine structure lines splits into a series of equidistant lines with a distance proportional to the magnetic field strength. As it has been noticed, it can be explained by saying that the electron has a magnetic moment. The magnetic moment of course, can only exist if there is a circular motion involved; in our case, the electrons structure accounts for this circular motion by a charged yet massless photon toroidal knot yielding a magnetic moment



The fundamental fine structure inside of the electron is therefore... carried on in the nature outside of the horizon of the radius of transport.

The ''zitter clock'' was varified experimentally. This was an idea created by deBroglie and was confirmed in a channelling experiment. The period of the frequency of the electron clock is given as



It has been noted by ref 1. in my main paper, that the electron clock can be attributed to the toroidal motion of our charged massless system. In fact, the electron in it's most elegantly explained form, is that it is a lightlike particle which follows in which the spin is determined by the internal helical dynamics where it even has a curvature and a frequency... and as I showed in my own work, may even be attributed to a phase related to the intrinsic gravitational charge.

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Originally Posted by Farsight

Also see [1206.0620] On the Wave Character of the Electron

The paper has definitely given me some idea's. I like how they have taken the classical approach by describing the interior of the electron as a synchrotron radiation, that is when a unit of radiation followed a curved geodesic in spacetime - which is exactly how I model the electron in my own approach. They have however provided a much sturdier mathematical ground and proving it very well.

The contraction for "Idea Is", quite meaningless in this context. Wanna talk technical, in the English Language? Don't F.U. like this! jocular

If the electron clock is determined by the circular motion at the speed of light, we may attribute this to a invariant proper time operator which would be related to the ''rest'' energy of the system as

[QUOTE=jocular;450316]

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

The contraction for "Idea Is", quite meaningless in this context. Wanna talk technical, in the English Language? Don't F.U. like this! jocular

Let's see if you can talk technical about such things without the vulgarity?

Now this invariant time operator coefficient term on the energy giving us the quantization condition



Can actually be related to as Motz explains; the proper time must be treated as an operator which is canonically conjugate to the rest mass of particles, which was discussed in ref 1 below. It actually brings us back to the electron clock, where we are dealing with the proper time of the electrons history. The zitter motion and the invariant proper time operator therefore might be doing the same thing in respects of giving rise to angular momentum component .



ref 1. L Motz, phys. Rev., 93, 901 (1954)

There is a problem which exists though, concerning the modelling of the zitter motion as a proper time invariant operator, that is that the electron is modelled by Hestenes as a lightlike curve




thus




and proper time cannot be defined in such ways. Hestene does however mention this and that a physical definition of the time parameter must be determined by other features of the model

FQXi - Foundational Questions Instituteowever, as I pointed out in the previous post, ''The zitter motion and the invariant proper time operator therefore might be doing the same thing in respects of giving rise to angular momentum component'' and this is meant to be taken seriously that the time parameter derives from the assumption that the electron has an intrinsic angular momentum (which is as we have covered), the toroidal topology of our massless charge.

The spin in this sense, becomes a function of the time parameter which as the mathematical jargon of Hestene points out adequately, ''is a null bivector.''

This is how he reaches the potential zitter term , by introducing the relevant equations of motion for the velocity , momentum and the spin . Very ingenuous, so that the potential zitter interaction term becomes a function . In this respect from this model, we can talk about the proper time experienced between two events - the incremental events which defines the electron clock. And as we have seen, the electron clock may be written as a function or it could actually be represented as a dynamical time invariant operator on the energy term which in return tells us it has an angular momentum. Or we can write it as an integral



Where the integral defines a proper time interval. For an invariant time operator case, where is the mean transport of radius for the charged massless circulating system, we would have





where is the rest energy, or in terms of electron energy which is more accurate we would have

It was a nice paper, geo, and I liked the message, but I don't think it was really fundamental enough. For that I think you need to talk about potential and displacement current, and how a wave can displace itself into a closed path such that a field variation propagating at c becomes a standing field. Email me and I'll tell you what I can. I'm just a well-read IT guy by the way.

Question : do we really want this forum to be turned into a personal blog ? Because that is exactly what this thread looks like to me...

Originally Posted by jocular

The contraction for "Idea Is", quite meaningless in this context.

Or possibly the genitive case. But that would be equally meaningless.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Question : do we really want this forum to be turned into a personal blog ? Because that is exactly what this thread looks like to me...

Apart from the times he starts a dialogue with himself:

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Well, not exactly Geo. ...

And based on his history, he will probably start deleting the contents of the posts soon...

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Question : do we really want this forum to be turned into a personal blog ? Because that is exactly what this thread looks like to me...

How would you assess the quality, of Geometrogenesis's posts, for those of us who tend to be suspicious of this type of thread, but are not certain about the accuracy of our own opinions?
Saying the thread comes close to being a "personal blog" is not necessarily a criticism of the content of these posts.

Originally Posted by Halliday

How would you assess the quality, of Geometrogenesis's posts, for those of us who tend to be suspicious of this type of post, but are not certain about the accuracy of our own opinions.

Well, in his own words:

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Never thought it was quality enough.

And then we have The Confessions of a Pseudo-Scientist:

I believe in my assertions though.

A better approach might be to start with the assumption that your idea is wrong and needs testing.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Saying the thread comes close to being a "personal blog" is not necessarily a criticism of the content of the these posts.

But, to be fair, I can't judge the quality of the content either (but remain suspicious).

Originally Posted by jocular

The contraction for "Idea Is", quite meaningless in this context. Wanna talk technical, in the English Language? Don't F.U. like this! jocular

Moderator Warning: Next time you don't understand what someone is talking about, just remain silent. One small grammatical error (that may have been a typo) in a sizeable series of posts, is not worthy of comment. There are times to pick out poorly written English. This is not one of them.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Saying the thread comes close to being a "personal blog" is not necessarily a criticism of the content of the these posts.

Yes, correct, it isn't.

How would you assess the quality, of Geometrogenesis's posts, for those of us who tend to be suspicious of this type of post, but are not certain about the accuracy of our own opinions.

This is not directed at you, Halliday, but I am no longer sure what I am supposed to comment on threads like this one ? The truth, or the politically correct thing ? Or perhaps I should keep my mouth shut, and refrain from commenting altogether, letting this stand as-is in the main physics section ?
Maybe it is just me, but lately I get the feeling that being politically correct seems to be more important than expressing a truthful and informed opinion on here, which is something I had truly hoped would never happen.

But to answer your question - my assessment is that this is meaningless word salad, sprinkled with generous helpings of equally meaningless high school algebra. I will not, however, get sucked into wasting my time trying to dissect this rather voluminous bowl of salad, so let's just say that's my personal opinion, and be done with it. I'll leave you with a few choice bits and pieces :

toroidal topology of our massless charge

the electron in it's most elegantly explained form, is that it is a lightlike particle which follows in which the spin is determined by the internal helical dynamics where it even has a curvature and a frequency

The magnetic moment of course, can only exist if there is a circular motion involved

This must happen to maintain the speed of light

What synchrotron radiation is, is when a charged particle is following a curved geodesic will emit radiation similar to the Larmor effect, but the electron is really a massless charge following a geodesic.

If electrons where not actually pointlike, this wouldn't change physics such that we would have to rewrite everything

The geodesic spoke of in which our gravitationally-induced photon is moving in, can be thought of a line element (Weyl).

Do we really consider the electron to be a "massless charge" moving along a torus, magically producing more charge ? Are electrons really "light-like" particles, whose "helical dynamics" give rise to spin ? Must we really "maintain" the speed of light of a particle ? Would the physics of electrons truly remain the same if it wasn't considered point-like ? Are photons "gravitationally induced" ?

Is any of this really science ?
You decide yourselves. To me, it most certainly isn't.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Halliday

How would you assess the quality, of Geometrogenesis's posts, for those of us who tend to be suspicious of this type of post, but are not certain about the accuracy of our own opinions.

Well, in his own words:

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Never thought it was quality enough.

And then we have The Confessions of a Pseudo-Scientist:

I believe in my assertions though.

A better approach might be to start with the assumption that your idea is wrong and needs testing.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Saying the thread comes close to being a "personal blog" is not necessarily a criticism of the content of the these posts.

But, to be fair, I can't judge the quality of the content either (but remain suspicious).

Quality enough that it is a good enough frame of reference for someone who isn't a physicist. I don't know how many papers are actually considered to get published if you are not qualified. But what is qualification...? If I understand my theory and believe in my assertions I must have reason to do so. Perhaps, instead of assuming that my theory is wrong like you'd like me to do, it might be better you asked me honestly why I believed my assertions, that will create some kind of ground for me to begin intelligible discussions on the subject which I am fully prepared to do.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by jocular

The contraction for "Idea Is", quite meaningless in this context. Wanna talk technical, in the English Language? Don't F.U. like this! jocular

Moderator Warning: Next time you don't understand what someone is talking about, just remain silent. One small grammatical error (that may have been a typo) in a sizeable series of posts, is not worthy of comment. There are times to pick out poorly written English. This is not one of them.

Is it okay for me to make witless comments though? Realizing sarcasm is inscrutable online for the most part, this is not a sarcastic question.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Halliday

Saying the thread comes close to being a "personal blog" is not necessarily a criticism of the content of the these posts.

Yes, correct, it isn't.

How would you assess the quality, of Geometrogenesis's posts, for those of us who tend to be suspicious of this type of post, but are not certain about the accuracy of our own opinions.

This is not directed at you, Halliday, but I am no longer sure what I am supposed to comment on threads like this one ? The truth, or the politically correct thing ? Or perhaps I should keep my mouth shut, and refrain from commenting altogether, letting this stand as-is in the main physics section ?
Maybe it is just me, but lately I get the feeling that being politically correct seems to be more important than expressing a truthful and informed opinion on here, which is something I had truly hoped would never happen.

But to answer your question - my assessment is that this is meaningless word salad, sprinkled with generous helpings of equally meaningless high school algebra. I will not, however, get sucked into wasting my time trying to dissect this rather voluminous bowl of salad, so let's just say that's my personal opinion, and be done with it. I'll leave you with a few choice bits and pieces :

toroidal topology of our massless charge

the electron in it's most elegantly explained form, is that it is a lightlike particle which follows in which the spin is determined by the internal helical dynamics where it even has a curvature and a frequency

The magnetic moment of course, can only exist if there is a circular motion involved

This must happen to maintain the speed of light

What synchrotron radiation is, is when a charged particle is following a curved geodesic will emit radiation similar to the Larmor effect, but the electron is really a massless charge following a geodesic.

If electrons where not actually pointlike, this wouldn't change physics such that we would have to rewrite everything

The geodesic spoke of in which our gravitationally-induced photon is moving in, can be thought of a line element (Weyl).

Do we really consider the electron to be a "massless charge" moving along a torus, magically producing more charge ? Are electrons really "light-like" particles, whose "helical dynamics" give rise to spin ? Must we really "maintain" the speed of light of a particle ? Would the physics of electrons truly remain the same if it wasn't considered point-like ? Are photons "gravitationally induced" ?

Is any of this really science ?
You decide yourselves. To me, it most certainly isn't.

I believe people encounter other people's remarks as word salad if they don't understand what is being said. Though most of the time, you will find people who do spout salad all day long.

Yes, we really do believe the electron moving in a circular motion as a massless charge. I have given evidence in the form of references which discuss this topic in great length. In fact, David Hestenes speaks about it in his very abstract of his work, ref 6 I believe.

Again, there is no word salad, only your knowledge on the subject is lacking. But I am sorry if my math doesn't scratch you enough.

Oh and photons are not normally gravitationally-induced. You can have graviphotons in some theories, but because Motz believed that the gravitational field inside of the particle is responsible for the existence of the photon and that because the gravitational field is large inside of them, the photon may be a special type of graviphoton.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Question : do we really want this forum to be turned into a personal blog ? Because that is exactly what this thread looks like to me...

Apart from the times he starts a dialogue with himself:

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Well, not exactly Geo. ...

And based on his history, he will probably start deleting the contents of the posts soon...

Not at all. I said something on the moment, and realized I phrased it wrong. I could be really disingenuous and have edited it.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Is any of this really science ?
You decide yourselves. To me, it most certainly isn't.

And just in case you missed the references I will make it easy for you to see why scientists really do think the electron is really a massless charge trapped in a toroidal topological spacetime


.........................................





Ref 1. http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf
Ref 2. http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.../1971/motz.pdf
http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.../1966/motz.pdf


Ref 3. You can in fact get the classical electron velocity from this as





Combining that with the electron energy equation we obtain





Thus





then there is a fine structure relationship





Ref 4.


The Lorentz force is of course and to refresh our minds, the Coriolis force is (where we are omitting the cross products). What is interesting is if you set them equal,





(setting these two quantities equal with each other should not be a surprise, since the Coriolis force is a type of gravimagnetic field)


cancel the linear velocities and divide the gravitational charge on both sides you get





Ref 5. http://arxiv.org/vc/hep-ph/papers/0306/0306230v2.pdf
Ref 6. To note, is the chosen notation by Hestenes describing the electromagnetic field which in mathematical jargon, is a bivector. You can see this from his work on spacetime algebra http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/ZBWinQM15**.pdf .
External Ref. http://www.electronspin.org/electron.pdf

Here is Hestenes exact paper without you looking for it

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-conte...1bae814fb4f9e9

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

I believe people encounter other people's remarks as word salad if they don't understand what is being said

...or when they understand enough about the subject matter to be able to tell that it actually is word salad. I will leave it up to the readers to decide which is the case here.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

I believe people encounter other people's remarks as word salad if they don't understand what is being said

...or when they understand enough about the subject matter to be able to tell that it actually is word salad. I will leave it up to the readers to decide which is the case here.

Why would you need to leave it to the readers if you are so certain?

Have you expressed any intelligible reason, outside of accusation that it is actually word salad... or it is only word salad because you

A) Couldn't believe such a model existed

or

B) That you don't understand the model

or

C) You believe I don't have clue what I am talking about ie. crackpottery?

You could for instance, show us your bright skills and show us why you think it is word salad outside of mere accusation.

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

And just in case you missed the references I will make it easy for you to see why scientists really do think the electron is really a massless charge trapped in a toroidal topological spacetime

Ref 1. http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf
Ref 2. http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.../1971/motz.pdf
http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.../1966/motz.pdf

These all appear to be informal essays, privately published books, etc. Have you no real science (i.e. peer reviewed journals) to support your case?

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Here is Hestenes exact paper without you looking for it

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-conte...1bae814fb4f9e9

Yes, I am familiar with this model, but what you are presenting here is a farce and has very little to do with Hestene's original idea. Mass is of electromagnetic nature ? Gravitational charge ? Mass is the result of fluctuations of bound photons ?

I think not.

Even without your own additions, this model never made it to the mainstream, so in any case this should not be in the main physics section.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Here is Hestenes exact paper without you looking for it

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-conte...1bae814fb4f9e9

Yes, I am familiar with this model, but what you are presenting here is a farce and has very little to do with Hestene's original idea. Mass is of electromagnetic nature ? Gravitational charge ? Mass is the result of fluctuations of bound photons ?

I think not.

Even without your own additions, this model never made it to the mainstream, so in any case this should not be in the main physics section.

Correction... it made it into the mainstream. It was just never taken seriously because the electron appeared pointlike to certain lengths. As I explained in the OP, a similar condition exists within string theory... would you call that word salad? I'd call it more of a mathematical hallucination, but the point is that you cannot be biased in your science.

Again, if you have heard of these theories, why then would you call it word salad?

The gravitational charge is the inertial mass of a system.

Mass is the result of a bound pair or by a single photon following a toroidal structure, this has experimental varification in zitter motion. The zitter clock was even experimentally varified. Even the paper involving the toroidal structure, they showed their theory actually came pretty much close in all parameters of the charge, spin and even the size of the electron.

Saying it never made it into mainstream is lie and saying it is word salad without an in-depth in-put by yourself is word salad in itself.

And the reason why mass is electromagnetic in nature, doesn't only go back to the late 1800's, but the theory continued and actually in strong form right up till modern era. In fact, the wiki article on electromagnetic mass explains that some physicists actually still talk about mass in such ways.

In an analogy, what is mass? Do you know what a physicist really means when they talk about mass?

I'll tell you, it is simply a goldstone boson which fluctuates away from the ground potential. A Goldstone boson is nothing but a photon in the ground state!

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

You could for instance, show us your bright skills and show us why you think it is word salad outside of mere accusation.

1. Massless charges do not exist, to the best of our current knowledge
2. There is no evidence that electrons have spatial extent
3. The speed of light neither requires nor permits acceleration - it doesn't need to be "maintained"
4. Particles on curved geodesics, i.e. in free-fall through curved space-time, do not emit synchrotron radiation
5. The Weyl curvature of a small, "highly dense" region of space-time would be vanishingly small
6. The electron's magnetic moment is not due to circular motion, but due to intrinsic angular momentum, which has nothing to do with rotations of any kind
7. Massless charges moving on geodesics within a confined region of space-time such as the electron would not trace out a helix

And many, many others.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

You could for instance, show us your bright skills and show us why you think it is word salad outside of mere accusation.

1. Massless charges do not exist, to the best of our current knowledge
2. There is no evidence that electrons have spatial extent
3. The speed of light neither requires nor permits acceleration - it doesn't need to be "maintained"
4. Particles on curved geodesics, i.e. in free-fall through curved space-time, do not emit synchrotron radiation
5. The Weyl curvature of a small, "highly dense" region of space-time would be vanishingly small
6. The electron's magnetic moment is not due to circular motion, but due to intrinsic angular momentum, which has nothing to do with rotations of any kind
7. Massless charges moving on geodesics within a confined region of space-time such as the electron would not trace out a helix

And many, many others.

Right good. Let's start with these... I will retort these claims with something else.

1. Massless charges do not exist in nature this is true. Except for the special case of a photon following a curvature in space and timelike loop. This has been shown to be accurate in the references given. The Yang mills theory once predicted massless charged bosons but they realized that the prediction was wrong. However, the special case remains true.

2. There is no evidence that electrons have an internal radius - but correction orders involving energy changes can explain why they appear pointlike which means we cannot rule out with 100% certainty they are actually pointlike.

3. Anything which follows a curvature in spacetime involves acceleration. That is just basic physics, the physics does not change for a photon.

4. The acceleration of a charged particle emits an ''electromagnetic inertia'' as it was called by Feynman, so this is incorrect.

5. Vanishingly small? It would be small, but should be calculatable. The small radius of an electron might not be detected experimentally, but there may be other ways we can probe for evidence that there is a weyl curvature of a highly dense internal structure.

6. The electrons magnetic moment is due to circular motion: in this regard, we are talking about the angular momentum component produced by the moving massless charge inside the structure of the electron. Again, you must read the toroidal paper. This explains how angular momentum is created from the moving photon inside of the electron.

7. Why do you say that? Hestenes, explains that the zitter model explains the internal structure of the electron as lightlike helices. The toroidal paper explains how similar their model is to the zitter motion and that it creates it own helix structure. I don't understand what science tells you that is impossible.

By the way, the technical explanation for radiation emitted by accelerated charged particles is called the larmor equation. You should look it up. A bizarre equation in it's own right, but very accurate and very true.

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

it made it into the mainstream

Oh really ? Then reference for us a university textbook which teaches that electrons are in fact spatially extended, toroidal systems of massless charges.

In an analogy, what is mass? Do you know what a physicist really means when they talk about mass?

The proportionality factor between 4-momentum and 4-velocity. Nothing at all to do with electromagnetism.

Mass is the result of a bound pair or by a single photon following a toroidal structure, this has experimental varification in zitter motion.

Incorrect - it's merely your very own unfounded assertion. There is no experimental evidence for this; there isn't even any evidence for electrons to have any spatial extent !

doesn't only go back to the late 1800's

We are in 2013.

A Goldstone boson is nothing but a photon in the ground state!

Incorrect. Goldstone bosons are scalar particles associated with the conserved currents of spontaneously broken symmetry groups. Photons do not have excitation states, or "ground potentials".

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Massless charges do not exist in nature this is true. Except for the special case of a photon following a curvature in space and timelike loop.

Photons do not carry any charge.

Anything which follows a curvature in spacetime involves acceleration.

Incorrect. Null geodesics do not involve any acceleration.

The acceleration of a charged particle emits an ''electromagnetic inertia'' as it was called by Feynman, so this is incorrect.

See above.

Vanishingly small? It would be small, but should be calculatable. The small radius of an electron might not be detected experimentally, but there may be other ways we can probe for evidence that there is a weyl curvature of a highly dense internal structure.

"Should" ? You presented this as fact before.

I don't understand what science tells you that is impossible.

Because of all of the above. Do you even read what I write ?

The electrons magnetic moment is due to circular motion: in this regard, we are talking about the angular momentum component produced by the moving massless charge inside the structure of the electron. Again, you must read the toroidal paper. This explains how angular momentum is created from the moving photon inside of the electron.

You are going in circles, completely ignoring all the points I already made. Electron magnetic moments are the result of spin. Google it !
You see, this is is why this is a waste of time, just like I said all along. You are nothing but a crackpot, who does not listen to anything that is explained to him/her.

I'll leave you to it.

Your witty banter will not wash here, we are not talking standard physics textbooks. We are talking about theoretical models which have reached mainstream but haven't taken off... I explained why this is.

''The proportionality factor between 4-momentum and 4-velocity. Nothing at all to do with electromagnetism.''

My my... that is a very in-depth knowledge of mass you have there. We are not discussing the basics of relativitistic four momentum or four velocity, we are talking about what mass is in the way a physicist would talk about it... from a standard model perspective. Mass is but a photon which fluctuates from a ground state mexican hat potential. This is the most basic and yet perhaps less imaginative way to think of mass.... but as Leonard Susskind tells us, ''this is what physicists mean when they talk about mass.''

''Incorrect - it's merely your very own unfounded assertion. There is no experimental evidence for this; there isn't even any evidence for electrons to have any spatial extent !''

The assertion is not unfounded when I provided serious models which attempt to explain this. Saying there is no evidence is not evidence of there not being evidence. You need to start understanding this.

''Incorrect. Goldstone bosons are scalar particles associated with the conserved currents of spontaneously broken symmetry groups. Photons do not have excitation states, or "ground potentials".''

No as (I recite Susskind again), a ground state photon is a goldstone boson.

The spontaneous symmetry breaking you speak of is actually the mathematical formulation which leads to a goldstone boson describing the appearance of a mass. As Susskind explains in his lectures, for continued learning, that the ground state photon fluctuates away from the ground state potential. This change in energy describes what we attribute to as a mass in the system.




No offense, but you came into my thread proclaiming to know word salad when you see one. But all I see is a troubled (attempted) intellectual debate on subjects you don't appear to know deep enough about. But if you want me to take you through some spontaneous symmetry breaking, I'd be happy to, in a mathematical way of course.

By the way, when I say there is evidence of a spatial structure, you need to understand, there is strong evidence and experimental confirmation of an internal dynamic.

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Your witty banter will not wash here, we are not talking standard physics textbooks. We are talking about theoretical models which have reached mainstream but haven't taken off...

How do you define "mainstream" then? If it isn't part of "text book" science or (as far as you have presented) any peer-reviewed work, on what basis do you call it mainstream?

And why dismiss any criticisms (based on real mainstream physics) as "witty banter"? Rather immature, isn't it?

No as (I recite Susskind again), a ground state photon is a goldstone boson.

If you are going to quote Susskind, or anyone else, please provide a source.

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

By the way, when I say there is evidence of a spatial structure, you need to understand, there is strong evidence and experimental confirmation of an internal dynamic.

Citation needed.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Oh really? Then reference for us a university textbook which teaches that electrons are in fact spatially extended, toroidal systems of massless charges...

A textbook that relates to what geo is seeking is Geometry of Electromagnetic Systems by Baldomir and Hammond. Geo, you may also find The Role of the Potentials in Electromagnetism to be of interest. And don't forget the Einstein-de Haas effect which demonstrates that "spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". Markus, perhaps you could tell geo something about gravitomagnetism and frame-dragging along with TQFT and topological charge? You could for example refer to the blue torus on the Edinburgh TQFT web page and to Dirac's belt and show how this relates to the Dirac equation, which is a "relativistic wave equation".

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Maybe it is just me, but lately I get the feeling that being politically correct seems to be more important than expressing a truthful and informed opinion on here, which is something I had truly hoped would never happen.

But to answer your question - my assessment is that this is meaningless word salad, sprinkled with generous helpings of equally meaningless high school algebra. I will not, however, get sucked into wasting my time trying to dissect this rather voluminous bowl of salad, so let's just say that's my personal opinion, and be done with it. I'll leave you with a few choice bits and pieces :

You are one of a relatively small number of members, of this Forum, whose views on Maths/Physics posts I would trust.
I realise it is not always easy, but if you think a post is basically drivel you should say that. I get the impression there are posters who appear to use language quite skilfully altho' the actual scientific content of their posts can be summed up as "meaningless word salad". These individuals should be told the truth!
I don't suppose anyone would be prepared to send a grovelling message to DrRocket. Maybe the forum needs another hard case who knows his stuff!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Your witty banter will not wash here, we are not talking standard physics textbooks. We are talking about theoretical models which have reached mainstream but haven't taken off...

How do you define "mainstream" then? If it isn't part of "text book" science or (as far as you have presented) any peer-reviewed work, on what basis do you call it mainstream?

And why dismiss any criticisms (based on real mainstream physics) as "witty banter"? Rather immature, isn't it?

No as (I recite Susskind again), a ground state photon is a goldstone boson.

If you are going to quote Susskind, or anyone else, please provide a source.

That's a good question... how does one define mainstream science?

Saying it never reached mainstream is like saying it was never heard by the ears of professional physicists. If by mainstream, we mean it is hardcore and cornerstone principles, then no, the electron toroid model never took off because, as I will explain again, the problem of detecting a radius. But, the model presented showed why there was no radius detected and to rehash what I said before... the absence of evidence is not evidence against. The evidence of the electron radius has been taken to extremely small levels, but the toroid model shows why that could be, which means there is an element of doubt. Not to mention... you can never actually ''prove'' a theory and the pointlike nature of the electron is a theory after all.



I do not have the time right now to find Susskinds' exact quotation, but if you like I can help you find it until I do. You can go to youtube for Susskinds online lectures on spontaneous symmetry breaking and what it means when we talk about how a mass is really a ground state photon that fluctuates from the bottom of the mexican hat potential model.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Maybe it is just me, but lately I get the feeling that being politically correct seems to be more important than expressing a truthful and informed opinion on here, which is something I had truly hoped would never happen.

But to answer your question - my assessment is that this is meaningless word salad, sprinkled with generous helpings of equally meaningless high school algebra. I will not, however, get sucked into wasting my time trying to dissect this rather voluminous bowl of salad, so let's just say that's my personal opinion, and be done with it. I'll leave you with a few choice bits and pieces :

You are one of a relatively small number of members, of this Forum, whose views on Maths/Physics posts I would trust.
I realise it is not always easy, but if you think a post is basically drivel you should say that.

I don't believe you are wrong in this statement, but to call something word salad is meaningless for anyone outside a deep knowledge of physics of a particular subject. It's nothing but itself an assertion.

This is why I asked for a more in-depth explanation of why it is word salad. You shouldn't come into someone's thread and call it word salad, just because you believe it is not true. A lot of us are wrong in many occasions in your lifetime, I provided evidence, references and my own analysis of the mathematics (as simple as it may seem, but not simple to everyone), but at the same time, to give respect to science that you will show why.

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Saying it never reached mainstream is like saying it was never heard by the ears of professional physicists.

OK. So by "reached the mainstream" you mean they have heard of it.

I do not have the time right now to find Susskinds' exact quotation, but if you like I can help you find it until I do. You can go to youtube for Susskinds online lectures on spontaneous symmetry breaking and what it means when we talk about how a mass is really a ground state photon that fluctuates from the bottom of the mexican hat potential model.

I would hope for something a little better than a youtube video. (I find it extremely inconvenient to watch them, anyway. And I think it is a terrible medium for serious information.)

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Saying it never reached mainstream is like saying it was never heard by the ears of professional physicists.

OK. So by "reached the mainstream" you mean they have heard of it.

I do not have the time right now to find Susskinds' exact quotation, but if you like I can help you find it until I do. You can go to youtube for Susskinds online lectures on spontaneous symmetry breaking and what it means when we talk about how a mass is really a ground state photon that fluctuates from the bottom of the mexican hat potential model.

I would hope for something a little better than a youtube video. (I find it extremely inconvenient to watch them, anyway. And I think it is a terrible medium for serious information.)

By reached mainstream I mean three things in particular.

1) The professional board heard it.

2) The professional board ticked it as a viable theory, or it would never have been published.

3) The models itself have been extended to intelligent minds within the community, and extended in other models integrating the same idea's with interesting results.


So as mainstream theories go, it has done quite well. But a lot of the problems visit to the same place, the problem of detecting an electron radius.


(as for...) '''I would hope for a little better than a youtube video''

... it isn't just a youtube video, it is a serious lecture by a renowned physicist teaching a class of physics students. I don't know how much more valid you can get than this?

Originally Posted by Farsight

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Oh really? Then reference for us a university textbook which teaches that electrons are in fact spatially extended, toroidal systems of massless charges...

A textbook that relates to what geo is seeking is Geometry of Electromagnetic Systems by Baldomir and Hammond. Geo, you may also find The Role of the Potentials in Electromagnetism to be of interest. And don't forget the Einstein-de Haas effect which demonstrates that "spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". Markus, perhaps you could tell geo something about gravitomagnetism and frame-dragging along with TQFT and topological charge? You could for example refer to the blue torus on the Edinburgh TQFT web page and to Dirac's belt and show how this relates to the Dirac equation, which is a "relativistic wave equation".

You see, I haven't even seen these references apart from the Einstein-de Haas effect.

Thank you again... I have more reading to do!

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

By the way, the technical explanation for radiation emitted by accelerated charged particles is called the larmor equation. You should look it up. A bizarre equation in it's own right, but very accurate and very true.

You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. It is commonly stated, but is demonstrably wrong, that accelerated charges must radiate. The Larmor equation is not "very accurate and very true" unless you have a uselessly fluid definition of "very."

By the (strong) Equivalence Principle, a charge in a gravitational field is indistinguishable from a charge undergoing acceleration. By your logic, then, a stationary (in our frame) charge on earth will radiate, presenting a bit of a problem with respect to energy conservation. We do not observe free energy being emitted by a stationary charge in a gravitational field, so we know that the Larmor equation simply does not apply to that, and many other, situations. There is a resolution to the apparent paradox, but it involves more subtle considerations than your blanket and naive assertions comprehend.

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

1) The professional board heard it.

2) The professional board ticked it as a viable theory, or it would never have been published.

What is this "professional board" of which you speak?

it isn't just a youtube video, it is a serious lecture by a renowned physicist teaching a class of physics students. I don't know how much more valid you can get than this?

Well, I would prefer something I could read. But if you find me a link, I will try and watch it. (I do, after all, frequently recommend the Feynman QED lectures to [young] people - even though I had to give up and read the book.)

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

By the way, the technical explanation for radiation emitted by accelerated charged particles is called the larmor equation. You should look it up. A bizarre equation in it's own right, but very accurate and very true.

You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. It is commonly stated, but is demonstrably wrong, that accelerated charges must radiate. The Larmor equation is not "very accurate and very true" unless you have a uselessly fluid definition of "very."

By the (strong) Equivalence Principle, a charge in a gravitational field is indistinguishable from a charge undergoing acceleration. By your logic, then, a stationary (in our frame) charge on earth will radiate, presenting a bit of a problem with respect to energy conservation. We do not observe free energy being emitted by a stationary charge in a gravitational field, so we know that the Larmor equation simply does not apply to that, and many other, situations. There is a resolution to the apparent paradox, but it involves more subtle considerations than your blanket and naive assertions comprehend.

No, not a stationary charge. How did you come to this conclusion from what I have been talking about? A particle at rest emits to near no radiation, it is only when you begin to push the particle in the accelerated motion it emits radiation. I never, at any time, said a stationary system like an electron emits a radiation (though no subject system is never really at rest) so undetectable amounts may still radiate.


Still, you have read me wrong. I never at once said a stationary system emits the electromagnetic inertia... if you can provide a reference here which states I have said this, then I will apologize, but I am quite sure I haven't... in fact I wouldn't.

The radiation from a (charged) particle system in acceleration will emit the electromagnetic units as photons. This is actually an energy described as power.

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

By the way, the technical explanation for radiation emitted by accelerated charged particles is called the larmor equation. You should look it up. A bizarre equation in it's own right, but very accurate and very true.

You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. It is commonly stated, but is demonstrably wrong, that accelerated charges must radiate. The Larmor equation is not "very accurate and very true" unless you have a uselessly fluid definition of "very."

By the (strong) Equivalence Principle, a charge in a gravitational field is indistinguishable from a charge undergoing acceleration. By your logic, then, a stationary (in our frame) charge on earth will radiate, presenting a bit of a problem with respect to energy conservation. We do not observe free energy being emitted by a stationary charge in a gravitational field, so we know that the Larmor equation simply does not apply to that, and many other, situations. There is a resolution to the apparent paradox, but it involves more subtle considerations than your blanket and naive assertions comprehend.

No, not a stationary charge. How did you come to this conclusion from what I have been talking about? A particle at rest emits to near no radiation, it is only when you begin to push the particle in the accelerated motion it emits radiation. I never, at any time, said a stationary system like an electron emits a radiation (though no subject system is never really at rest) so undetectable amounts may still radiate.


Still, you have read me wrong. I never at once said a stationary system emits the electromagnetic inertia... if you can provide a reference here which states I have said this, then I will apologize, but I am quite sure I haven't... in fact I wouldn't.

You don't even understand the consequences of your own statements, even after I have explained them to you. I'll repeat:

1) You cited the Larmor equation, which says that accelerated charges radiate. You asserted in post 55 that the equation is "very true."

2) GR says that an accelerated charge in free (flat) space is indistinguishable from a stationary charge in a gravitational field.

The rest is pure logic, but I'll fill in the blanks for you. By citing the Larmor equation as "very true," you are saying that a stationary charge in a gravitational field radiates.

Now do you get it?

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

By the way, the technical explanation for radiation emitted by accelerated charged particles is called the larmor equation. You should look it up. A bizarre equation in it's own right, but very accurate and very true.

You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. It is commonly stated, but is demonstrably wrong, that accelerated charges must radiate. The Larmor equation is not "very accurate and very true" unless you have a uselessly fluid definition of "very."

By the (strong) Equivalence Principle, a charge in a gravitational field is indistinguishable from a charge undergoing acceleration. By your logic, then, a stationary (in our frame) charge on earth will radiate, presenting a bit of a problem with respect to energy conservation. We do not observe free energy being emitted by a stationary charge in a gravitational field, so we know that the Larmor equation simply does not apply to that, and many other, situations. There is a resolution to the apparent paradox, but it involves more subtle considerations than your blanket and naive assertions comprehend.

No, not a stationary charge. How did you come to this conclusion from what I have been talking about? A particle at rest emits to near no radiation, it is only when you begin to push the particle in the accelerated motion it emits radiation. I never, at any time, said a stationary system like an electron emits a radiation (though no subject system is never really at rest) so undetectable amounts may still radiate.


Still, you have read me wrong. I never at once said a stationary system emits the electromagnetic inertia... if you can provide a reference here which states I have said this, then I will apologize, but I am quite sure I haven't... in fact I wouldn't.

You don't even understand the consequences of your own statements, even after I have explained them to you. I'll repeat:

1) You cited the Larmor equation, which says that accelerated charges radiate. You asserted in post 55 that the equation is "very true."

2) GR says that an accelerated charge in free (flat) space is indistinguishable from a stationary charge in a gravitational field.

The rest is pure logic.

Now do you get it?

How many times do you need to misquote me... the photon does not move in flat spacetime, it is a curvature it follows. It is a geometry of curvature it follows. The relativistic equations in it's classical use, may even break down inside the electron, because there is no outside frame of reference due to the horizon condition of the radius of transport.

In other words, (even though in relativity we don't normally speak of a frame of reference for a photon) but even if it had one, how could it have one inside of an electron where there is an event horizon?

Electrons have event horizons now?

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Originally Posted by tk421

You don't even understand the consequences of your own statements, even after I have explained them to you. I'll repeat:

1) You cited the Larmor equation, which says that accelerated charges radiate. You asserted in post 55 that the equation is "very true."

2) GR says that an accelerated charge in free (flat) space is indistinguishable from a stationary charge in a gravitational field.

The rest is pure logic.

Now do you get it?

How many times do you need to misquote me... the photon does not move in flat spacetime, it is a curvature it follows. It is a geometry of curvature it follows. The relativistic equations in it's classical use, may even break down inside the electron, because there is no outside frame of reference due to the horizon condition of the radius of transport.

I have not misquoted you. I have only connected two statements. You did say, in post 55, that the Larmor equation is "very true." Are you now denying this? If so, then you are being dishonest.

The next statement I use is the Equivalence Principle of GR. You are using GR in your arguments, so I am inferring that you accept GR as correct. If my inference is wrong, then your entire theory is built on a logically inconsistent foundation.

I therefore do not see any misquotation going on. Just your own words, to which simple syllogistic reasoning is applied. Your real objection is to the identification of a flaw in your own reasoning. You seem to be attempting to deflect attention by attributing the problem to a misquotation by me. As the record shows, your attribution is false.

Either way, again, the photon is not travelling in a flat space time. It is following a very dense, and very small curvature of radius.

Originally Posted by Strange

Electrons have event horizons now?

inside yes.

You will find the horizon condition in the toroidal model of the electron I recited.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Originally Posted by tk421

You don't even understand the consequences of your own statements, even after I have explained them to you. I'll repeat:

1) You cited the Larmor equation, which says that accelerated charges radiate. You asserted in post 55 that the equation is "very true."

2) GR says that an accelerated charge in free (flat) space is indistinguishable from a stationary charge in a gravitational field.

The rest is pure logic.

Now do you get it?

How many times do you need to misquote me... the photon does not move in flat spacetime, it is a curvature it follows. It is a geometry of curvature it follows. The relativistic equations in it's classical use, may even break down inside the electron, because there is no outside frame of reference due to the horizon condition of the radius of transport.

I have not misquoted you. I have only connected two statements. You did say, in quote 55, that the Larmor equation is "very true." Are you now denying this? If so, then you are being dishonest.

The next statement I use is the Equivalence Principle of GR. You are using GR in your arguments, so I am inferring that you accept GR as correct. If that inference is wrong, then your entire theory is build on a logically inconsistent foundation.

I therefore do not see any misquotation going on. Just your own words, to which simple syllogistic reasoning is applied. Your real objection is to the identification of a flaw in your own reasoning, and are falsely attributing the problem to a misquotation by me. As the record shows, that attribution is false.

No I am not denying I said the Larmor equation is true... it is true. To say it isn't, goes against the experimental varification it has had with quite a high degree of certainty actually.

General relativity is the concept of the large, it can be applied at the very small but with many consequences more than I am willing to contribute in a single post... one of them being a very sophisticated and high degree of uncertainty (the UP) that neither the special nor the general theories take into account... in fact, it is near impossible to talk about general relativity in terms of the uncertainty principle. To unify the general and the special theories, you need to gauge the conditions exactly and if to satisfy the conditions of quantum mechanics, they need to take into account fundamental conditions, which neither theory fully accounts for.

The inconsistencies, if you realize any, is that we are talking about the very small world, and even smaller. .... the interior of particles themselves. I have already calculated the density of a particle in terms of the general consistency of relativity of an electron. But inside an electron is different to the principles one might expect, because quantizing GR leads to a stranger interpetation of an electron. If we took the toroid model seriously, the general equations break down in it's most complicated forms, even if they stand strong when describing celestial objects.

Originally Posted by Strange

Electrons have event horizons now?

I've already replied to you.

yes, if they have interior configurations, described by photons in knot topologies, then they actually have an event horizon described the electron shell.

Sorry [strange] I read your post twice. I thought you asked the question twice.

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

No I am not denying I said the Larmor equation is true... it is true. To say it isn't, goes against the experimental varification it has had with quite a high degree of certainty actually.

Your lack of knowledge is appropriately accompanied by a Dunning-Kruger certitude.

It is certainly true that the Larmor equation makes correct predctions in situations to which the Larmor equation applies. However, that is a tautological statement, and that is what you are really saying.

You have ignored the scenario that I described, apparently hoping that we wouldn't notice. But I noticed. You have not addressed the logical consequence of your very own statements. You didn't say the words, but I showed that your position is logically equivalent to asserting that stationary charges radiate. You have not refuted the logic, so my logic stands as correct. You are trying to hide behind a feeble "well, the Larmor equation is accurate because I say so."

I don't say so. I certainly don't buy your statement from authority, especially since you are that authority. I'm not asking you to accept my words on authority, either. Simply explain to me, using the "very true" Larmor formula, the following two experimental results:

1) The non-radiation of a stationary charge in a gravitational field.

2) Cerenkov radiation, in which no acceleration of charge is involved.

I'll tell you something interesting about General Relativity which still holds true today. The mass of a system depends on the gravitational field



If you want to quantize this in the system of a moving massless charge in a topological knot, you need to understand that the the equations describing the gravitational field is in fact different to what we might talk about when describing the interior of particles... one might ask why? Not only do we need to take into account the uncertainty principle, but that the gravitational field itself normalizes to the electric field. This fine tuning is something that classical physics has talked about through the Motz paper I recited, but more interesting than that is that the density of the particle then is defined by outside observers as an inertial mass, ie. rest mass energy.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

No I am not denying I said the Larmor equation is true... it is true. To say it isn't, goes against the experimental varification it has had with quite a high degree of certainty actually.

Your lack of knowledge is appropriately accompanied by a Dunning-Kruger certitude.

It is certainly true that the Larmor equation makes correct predctions in situations to which the Larmor equation applies. However, that is a tautological statement, and that is what you are really saying.

You have ignored the scenario that I described, apparently hoping that we wouldn't notice. But I noticed. You have not addressed the logical consequence of your very own statements. You didn't say the words, but I showed that your position is logically equivalent to asserting that stationary charges radiate. You have not refuted the logic, so my logic stands as correct. You are trying to hide behind a feeble "well, the Larmor equation is accurate because I say so."

I don't say so. I certainly don't buy your statement from authority, especially since you are that authority. I'm not asking you to accept my words on authority, either. Simply explain to me, using the "very true" Larmor formula, the following two experimental results:

1) The non-radiation of a stationary charge in a gravitational field.

2) Cerenkov radiation, in which no acceleration of charge is involved.

What? LOL

Tautological statement? If you mean there are some complete analogies then yes, they exist. I've actually shown some of them in the OP.

As for ''not noticing your assertions'' I have explained, you cannot apply relativity like you have. A stationary charge and a moving charge are completely different to an observer. It's even stranger when you enter the world of the interior structure of particles themselves. You act like I haven't listened to you.


And cherenkov radiation is totally different... as an ''authority'' figure, you will realize this means changing the medium in which electrons move in, in such a way they move faster than light!

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Sorry [strange] I read your post twice. I thought you asked the question twice.

'Salright. I think there was a database glitch anyway. And a black cat walked across my desk...

This is a joke, it must be. I can't believe you would bring the cherenkov radiation into this discussion. It's a totally different scenario. You are changing the fundamental constants which make the vaccum/medium itself.

To do that, you need to adjust the constants and , which is very possible and has been done by using different medium based fabrics.

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

You see, I haven't even seen these references apart from the Einstein-de Haas effect. Thank you again... I have more reading to do!

There's quite a lot out there that's potentially of use. For example see this NASA gravitomagnetism article. It contains sentences like “There is a space-time vortex around Earth” and “if space is twisted”. Then if you take a look at Minkowski’s Space and Time alongside figures 3 and 4, you can read this: “In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics; the analogy is, however, imperfect”. If you then look at Maxwell’s On Physical Lines of Force and go to page 53 you can read this: “A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw". Note that Minkowski referred to the field and two forces. If you combine the radial "electric field" lines with concentric "magnetic field" lines, the result might look like this. Look at Maxwell's page title. And check out the Falaco soliton. Imagine you were looking at a slice of it underwater. The "torsion string singularity" looks pointlike, but there isn't actually anything there. If you didn't understand what you were dealing with, you might think it was very very small.

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

No I am not denying I said the Larmor equation is true... it is true. To say it isn't, goes against the experimental varification it has had with quite a high degree of certainty actually.

Your lack of knowledge is appropriately accompanied by a Dunning-Kruger certitude.

It is certainly true that the Larmor equation makes correct predctions in situations to which the Larmor equation applies. However, that is a tautological statement, and that is what you are really saying.

You have ignored the scenario that I described, apparently hoping that we wouldn't notice. But I noticed. You have not addressed the logical consequence of your very own statements. You didn't say the words, but I showed that your position is logically equivalent to asserting that stationary charges radiate. You have not refuted the logic, so my logic stands as correct. You are trying to hide behind a feeble "well, the Larmor equation is accurate because I say so."

I don't say so. I certainly don't buy your statement from authority, especially since you are that authority. I'm not asking you to accept my words on authority, either. Simply explain to me, using the "very true" Larmor formula, the following two experimental results:

1) The non-radiation of a stationary charge in a gravitational field.

2) Cerenkov radiation, in which no acceleration of charge is involved.

What? LOL

Tautological statement? If you mean there are some complete analogies then yes, they exist. I've actually shown some of them in the OP.

As for ''not noticing your assertions'' I have explained, you cannot apply relativity like you have. A stationary charge and a moving charge are completely different to an observer. It's even stranger when you enter the world of the interior structure of particles themselves. You act like I haven't listened to you.


And cherenkov radiation is totally different... as an ''authority'' figure, you will realize this means changing the medium in which electrons move in, in such a way they move faster than light!

One of us indeed isn't listening. Hint: It's not me.

Again, my argument rests on two -- and only two -- statements:

1) Larmor is "very true." This is a direct quote of yours from post 55.

2) GR is correct. You are using GR in your own theory, so I am assuming that you accept it as true.

You have asserted 1) explicitly and 2) implicitly. I have challenged you to explain Cerenkov radiation, based only on your assertion 1). That's it. That's the challenge. No misquotations. No misapplications of anything you have said.

So, either you now deny the universal truthiness of the Larmor equation, or you have a steaming pile of illogic to contend with.

Which shall it be?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Sorry [strange] I read your post twice. I thought you asked the question twice.

'Salright. I think there was a database glitch anyway. And a black cat walked across my desk...

Too many matrices happening... or not enough

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

This is a joke, it must be. I can't believe you would bring the cherenkov radiation into this discussion. It's a totally different scenario. You are changing the fundamental constants which make the vaccum/medium itself.

No joke (on my end, at least; you, on the other hand...). A "very true" formula which continues to predict radiation as a function of acceleration would apply for any value of those constants. The Larmor equation makes no restriction as to the particular values of permittivity or permeability.

Now you're grasping at straws.

Desperate, eh?

Originally Posted by Farsight

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

You see, I haven't even seen these references apart from the Einstein-de Haas effect. Thank you again... I have more reading to do!

There's quite a lot out there that's potentially of use. For example see this NASA gravitomagnetism article. It contains sentences like “There is a space-time vortex around Earth” and “if space is twisted”. Then if you take a look at Minkowski’s Space and Time alongside figures 3 and 4, you can read this: “In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics; the analogy is, however, imperfect”. If you then look at Maxwell’s On Physical Lines of Force and go to page 53 you can read this: “A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw". Note that Minkowski referred to the field and two forces. If you combine the radial "electric field" lines with concentric "magnetic field" lines, the result might look like this. Look at Maxwell's page title. And check out the Falaco soliton. Imagine you were looking at a slice of it underwater. The "torsion string singularity" looks pointlike, but there isn't actually anything there. If you didn't understand what you were dealing with, you might think it was very very small.

As for the NASA article, they haven't missed much

The article is actually about frame-dragging. If the gravitational field is strong inside a particle, it actually contributes to the entire system. I spoke about this as the coriolis effect, something Motz first defined in the terms I spoke about as the cross products, but was actually found by sciama in his references. The system by an angular moment, intrinsically couples to a gravimagnetic field. This is analogous to a celestial body experiencing the dragging predicted by GR, but only in this model, we are talking about the outside the electron shell.

Originally Posted by Farsight

For example see this NASA gravitomagnetism article. It contains sentences like “There is a space-time vortex around Earth” and “if space is twisted”.

Did you know that if you say "vortex" three times then Forrest Noble will appear and we will be sucked into a black hole of pseudoscience never to be seen again.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

This is a joke, it must be. I can't believe you would bring the cherenkov radiation into this discussion. It's a totally different scenario. You are changing the fundamental constants which make the vaccum/medium itself.

No joke. A "very true" formula which continues to predict radiation as a function of acceleration would apply for any value of those constants. Now you're grasping at straws.

Desperate, eh?

Not at all. I am more than lost in some of your assertions to the model presented, as to bring concepts like the Cherenkov radiation into this without specifying to anyone in the public this involves technical differences in the medium. Moreso, you seem to be stuck on the idea that relativity in both special and general forms hold true in all cases, which it doesn't. In the only explanation I could think you might relate my model to these, is because they are both classical, but I don't present a classical model, I am proposing a semi-classical model of the electron... even if I hadn't, relativity still fails to take into account modern quantum mechanical effects which makes it purely one of the most... deepest classically-flawed theories to present in modern reading. No one yet has found a complete unification of the QM to GR or SR in contrast. You speak about them like they hold true in all cases, which they actually don't at the fundamental level.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Farsight

For example see this NASA gravitomagnetism article. It contains sentences like “There is a space-time vortex around Earth” and “if space is twisted”.

Did you know that if you say "vortex" three times then Forrest Noble will appear and we will be sucked into a black hole of pseudoscience never to be seen again.

I've heard that, but that came from too many people eating too much candy :P

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

This is a joke, it must be. I can't believe you would bring the cherenkov radiation into this discussion. It's a totally different scenario. You are changing the fundamental constants which make the vaccum/medium itself.

No joke. A "very true" formula which continues to predict radiation as a function of acceleration would apply for any value of those constants. Now you're grasping at straws.

Desperate, eh?

Not at all. I am more than lost in some of your assertions to the model presented, as to bring concepts like the Cherenkov radiation into this without specifying to anyone in the public this involves technical differences in the medium. Moreso, you seem to be stuck on the idea that relativity in both special and general forms hold true in all cases, which it doesn't. In the only explanation I could think you might relate my model to these, is because they are both classical, but I don't present a classical model, I am proposing a semi-classical model of the electron... even if I hadn't, relativity still fails to take into account modern quantum mechanical effects which makes it purely one of the most... deepest classically-flawed theories to present in modern reading. No one yet has found a complete unification of the QM to GR or SR in contrast. You speak about them like they hold true in all cases, which they actually don't at the fundamental level.

Your continued posting of word salad in response to a very simple challenge reveals to me that you are actively dishonest, as opposed to simply obtuse.

The fact that you continue to feign surprise at my invoking Cerenkov radiation reveals that you recognize the problem, but desperately wish not to engage in discussing it.

Your failure to answer is telling.

I'll supply the answer for you: The Larmor equation is wrong. It fails utterly to explain why Cerenkov radiation exists. It is a well-known, and widely discussed failure (see, e.g., Haus "On the radiation from point charges") of the Larmor formula. That's why I pointed out that your argument from authority ("Larmor is accurate because I say so") is readily shown to be false.

I repeat: You simply don't know what you are talking about. That you fail to grasp something as elementary as the limitations of the Larmor equation bodes ill for the rest of your theory.

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

Originally Posted by Farsight

Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

You see, I haven't even seen these references apart from the Einstein-de Haas effect. Thank you again... I have more reading to do!

There's quite a lot out there that's potentially of use. For example see this NASA gravitomagnetism article. It contains sentences like “There is a space-time vortex around Earth” and “if space is twisted”. Then if you take a look at Minkowski’s Space and Time alongside figures 3 and 4, you can read this: “In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics; the analogy is, however, imperfect”. If you then look at Maxwell’s On Physical Lines of Force and go to page 53 you can read this: “A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw". Note that Minkowski referred to the field and two forces. If you combine the radial "electric field" lines with concentric "magnetic field" lines, the result might look like this. Look at Maxwell's page title. And check out the Falaco soliton. Imagine you were looking at a slice of it underwater. The "torsion string singularity" looks pointlike, but there isn't actually anything there. If you didn't understand what you were dealing with, you might think it was very very small.

As for the NASA article, they haven't missed much

The article is actually about frame-dragging. If the gravitational field is strong inside a particle, it actually contributes to the entire system. I spoke about this as the coriolis effect, something Motz first defined in the terms I spoke about as the cross products, but was actually found by sciama in his references. The system by an angular moment, intrinsically couples to a gravimagnetic field. This is analogous to a celestial body experiencing the dragging predicted by GR, but only in this model, we are talking about the outside the electron shell.

I just want to add something to this, there is no fundamental unit of magnetism, but there is no fundamental unit of gravity either.

Both can be relativistic effects in a fundamental relation. Just as you can move a circular loop over a wire to create a magnetic field, you can find gravitational forces as you move in reference to another frame.

Both magnetism and gravity are not fundamental in the sense there is a particle mediator, but, they are still fundamental as sides of the same force.