The Nature of the Electron

[TrappedLight]

This is vastly different to how QFT sees the neutrino and don't forget the amazing experimental accuracy that we have with the syandard model.

 

Motz's paper from 1966 is before we had such a good handle on QFT.

 

 

In what senses? I am not entirely up to date with the neutrino experiments. I do know that Motz' idea does not work since we have detected a non-zero mass for the neutrino but it's excessively small.

However, on the other hand, it is interesting how the neutrino would be the only exception in nature. Just like how a bound photon is the only exception in nature that is possible for a moving yet massless charge.

[ajb]

In what senses? I am not entirely up to date with the neutrino experiments. I do know that Motz' idea does not work since we have detected a non-zero mass for the neutrino but it's excessively small.

The standard model as more or less finalised in the mid 1970's. This is after the paper you quote. We now have the electroweak theory to use to discuss neutrinos.

 

The one thing that is definiently not properly understood is neutrino oscillations, the most popular mechanism at the moment is the see-saw mechanism.

[TrappedLight]

The standard model as more or less finalised in the mid 1970's. This is after the paper you quote. We now have the electroweak theory to use to discuss neutrinos.

 

The one thing that is definiently not properly understood is neutrino oscillations, the most popular mechanism at the moment is the see-saw mechanism.

 

 

Yes, I know of these things, but I honestly don't see a problem.

 

The first intelligible paper that described electrons as bound photons was well after 1970. Almost thirty years later, so the neutrino is no exception. It is taken, by some physicists that all of matter are in fact states of either single or bound photons and the neutron cannot be outside that rule. The only real problem was that two bound photons would have a zero rest mass and we know the neutrino actually has a mass. A way to resolve that issue, as I noted before, is by stating there is a non-zero electromagnetic residue... and it might be very small resulting in a very small but still detectable mass!

 

My theory is definitely falsifiable, making good science.

 

 

 

edit

An interesting idea...

 

 

The bound photon pair will be in phase. Perhaps the oscillations are due to out of phase internal photon dynamics?

 

The single photon model can also answer why one photon shoots off in one direction and a photon in the other direction in annihilation decay. You answer this by saying the rotation of the photon is antiparallel to the photon in the antiparticle. Annihilation would mean they speed off in opposite directions.

 

We may also get more exotic cases for particles. There are of course, three cases of neutrino particle, which may have properties associated to the internal rotational dynamics of the photons.

Also I speculate the electromagnetic residue by predicting a non-zero magnetic moment (the unit given as Bohr magneton.)

 

[math]GM^2 = \frac{e }{2M c}( \frac{1}{2} \int \frac{h \nu}{c}\ d \bar{r}) \cdot \mathbf{B} \times \bar{r} = \mu_B \cdot \mathbf{A}[/math]

 

[math]\mu_B \ne 0[/math]

Edited September 26, 2013 by TrappedLight

[TrappedLight]

[math]\frac{e}{\sqrt{\alpha}} = \sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon G M_{p}^{2}}[/math],

 

which is fine. It seems to relate gravity to electric charge, but all I have really done is mess about fundamental constants in such a way that the units make sense...

 

You know, you don't give the equation enough justice. The quantity on the LHS is actually important, (this part):

 

[math]\frac{e}{\sqrt{\alpha}}[/math]

 

The quantity is actually a rearranged form of the definition of the fine structure constant

 

[math]\alpha = \frac{e^2}{\hbar c}[/math]

 

which becomes the square root of this and rearranged to make

 

[math]\sqrt{\hbar c} = \frac{e}{\sqrt{\alpha}}[/math]

 

There definitely appears to be physics at the work, if this relationship to the charge [math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math] to hold true.

(I've ignored factors of [math]k = 4 \pi \epsilon_0[/math])

[ajb]

Right, all I have written is the fine structure constant in a rather strange way. The fine structure constant has some meaning; it characterises the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. From the equations you have written you see that the fine structure constant squared is the ratio of the elementary charge and the Planck charge.

 

 

If we take two (hypothetical) particles each of Planck mass and elementary charge, separated by any distance, then the fine structure constant is the ratio of their electrostatic repulsive force to their gravitational attractive force. This is the link with Planck mass, but again I would not try to seek too much physics in this.

 

The Planck units give us some natural units to work with, or in other words they give us some fundamental scales in the universe. However, you have to be careful reading too much into these expressions.

Edited September 27, 2013 by ajb