Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? - what is that?

[ith]

"Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" - what is that?

Hello, there s a paper from 1996 http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf

I have no knowledge to understand the paper, but I am very interested in how two photons can produce an electron. I would like to try to read the paper, but before, I would like to ask you, if the paper sounds as a legit science?

And what do you thing about a possible structure of an electron?

 

[mathman]

I won't comment on the paper. However two photons colliding produce an electron positron pair, not just an electron (if the photons have enough energy). Similarly one photon with enough energy can also produce an electron positron pair, when in the presence of a nucleus (needed to conserve momentum).

 

[ith]

The paper hypothesizes, that a photon could split into two, each having opposite topology. These would produce opposite charges out of a normal electric field produced by a photon.

The paper cites 17 references, that try to explain the electron as a field phenomenon. Is this explained somewhere in simpler terms? Or could you tell me, what do you think on that topic?

 

[member 11137]

The paper hypothesizes, that a photon could split into two, each having opposite topology. These would produce opposite charges out of a normal electric field produced by a photon.

The paper cites 17 references, that try to explain the electron as a field phenomenon. Is this explained somewhere in simpler terms? Or could you tell me, what do you think on that topic?

As it is clearly said at the very end of that paper, it is (was) a speculative project. But it was also written in 1993, that is a long time ago. I am, like you, no specialist and just interested in physics because of that need to understand "how does the nature works". Personnaly, but it is not the opinion of a specialist, I find the attempt to establish a link between the topology (at Planckian scale) and particles both very interesting and very pionneering. Is the link (if there is some) the one which is described in that article? The question is open...

 

[mathman]

There is no evidence (in fact it is impossible) for a single photon by itself to produce an electron positron pair. It needs the presence of a nucleus or a second photon.

 

[lpetrich]

I'd like to see these questions addressed:

• How does one get spin 1/2? It seems impossible to get it from integer-spin entities.
• How does one get the Dirac equation for the electron?
• How does one account for the lack of measurable departures from Standard-Model behavior at least up to 100 GeV?

 

[laserblue]

The nature of an electron has been a mystery since it's discovery. It is associated with EM radiation in atoms and in the creation of an electron and a positron by a gamma ray as it passes a heavy nucleus. So why not use gestalt type ideas and instead of creating light from electfons, create electrons from light? You may find the ideas of Daniele Funaro go be of interest.http://cdm.unimo.it/home/matematica/funaro.daniele/phys.htm

 

[lpetrich]

Any electrically charged particle can emit and absorb photons. Electrons are nothing special there.

Furthermore, in the Standard Model, electrons and photons are more-or-less coequal. Photons are described by quantized Maxwell fields and electrons by quantized Dirac fields. Neither is composed of the other.

 

[laserblue]

Any electrically charged particle can emit and absorb photons. Electrons are nothing special there.

Furthermore, in the Standard Model, electrons and photons are more-or-less coequal. Photons are described by quantized Maxwell fields and electrons by quantized Dirac fields. Neither is composed of the other.

Sometimes in order to move forward beyond something like The Standard Model, one has to backtrack and pick up a different idea thread such as Weyl's gravity ideas and gauge theory or the ideas of Kaluza and Klein.
One should remember that the idea of photons being absorbed or emitted by electrons or electrons and positrons annihilating each other is an interpretation. Dr. Mendel Sachs for example, has proposed that in a theory in which Quantum Mechanics is derived from a General Theory of Relativity, photons are an unnecessary construct and there is a physical vacuum of particle-antiparticle pairs with null momentum that creates the effects that are interpreted as photons.
Back in the 1890's, there was an electromagnetic worldview that sought to describe all matter in terms of electromagnetism. Poincare tried to create a model of the electron but the idea of the electron as some kind of spherical object with a finite radius produced infinities in the equations. At the time, Maxwell's equations did not allow for solitonic solutions or even hint at photons. The paper by J. G. Williamson and M.B. Van der Mark is one of numerous explorations along the electromagnetic worldview line with the idea of deriving equations that describe an electron but get around the problem that led to infinities in Poincare's model of the electron. A related endeavour is that of Daniele Funaro who notes that Maxwell's equations have no particle-like solutions that could be interpreted as photons and may not be an accurate model of electromagnetic processes. Funaro proposes modified EM equations with solitonic solutions. In Funaro's model, the object interpreted as an electron is actually a nonlinear configuration of an electromagnetic field that involves EM solitons moving in a toroidal pattern.
Regarding the Dirac equation, Dr. David Hestenes has noted that there are notational incongruities in it that can be removed by reinterpreting it in terms of the Spacetime Physics of Geometric Algebra and Real Quantum Mechanics. Properties of the derivative in Spacetime Geometric Calculus reveals that the Dirac Equation is a nonlinear form of the Maxwell equation. There are ideas here of a similar nature mentioned by Dr. Mendel Sachs in his research program where he uses quaternions to get QM and GTR speaking the same mathematical language.
" There is no inductive method which could lead to the fundamental concepts pf physics"

 

[ith]

That is very interesting.

I wonder, if any of these theories came to at least a moderately precise derivation of the elementary charge, that would need at least a single constant less, when compared to the Standard Model?

 

[laserblue]

The question of whether or not a paper is legitimate science is not something that one should be asking others. Let tbe person who asked this question write down explicitly what they consider to be relevant criteria. Perhaps others could add their own set of criteria.

It is also possible that the question about the scienrific legitimacy of a paper may be our of place and prematurely too judgmental when new ideas are being proposed.

I recommend the reading of the paper, ' Scatering of Light by Free Electrons as a test of Quantum Theory' by Professor Edwin T. Jaynes. Professor Jaynes makes a number of points in this paper that might be of interest with respect to `alternative' physics, the nature of the electron and QED.

E.g. "...technology runs far ahead of real understanding"

" ... The practical men who give us our technology sometimes see no need for fundamental knowledge, and even deprecate it."

"... the real content of any physical theory lies precisely in the constraints that it imposes on phenomena; the stronger the constraints, the more cogent and useful the theory."

"Because of their empirical origins, QM and QED are not physical theories at all."

"Sucess - however great - of an empirically developed set of rules gives us no reason to believe in any particular physical interpretation of them. No physical principles went into them."

" ... the mathematical system of present quantum theory is, like that of epicycles, unconstrained by physical principles."

Regarding the existence of models that result in the need for fewer physical constants, such as by eliminating the need for Planck's constant, I have seen at least one or two papers that directly address this issue but I don't recall the exact titles or author names.
There are also papers extant regarding the nature of 'charge'. I will try to find them.

 

[ZapperZ]

The validity of any physical theory is never based on a series of quotations. Please do not deviate from discussing PHYSICS, rather than the sociology of physics. The latter should not be done in the BTSM forum.

Furthermore, please note that while we are a bit lax on the criteria for sources with this topic when compared to other topics in physics, you should try to either use peer-reviewed references, or legitimate ArXiv-uploaded references. A topic appearing in BTSM forum is not an excuse to engage in a free-for-all discussion and sources.

Zz.

 

[lpetrich]

I read that paper, and IMO it's worthless. Its use of semiclassical calculations is questionable at best, and it requires a photon-confinement effect that goes undiscussed in it. It also contains no attempts to derive the Dirac equation or to explain why the Standard-Model description of the electron works up to 100+ GeV. Such energies are much greater than the electron's rest mass and presumed confinement-effect energies.

New theories must be able to explain what old theories successfully explain, and an elegant way of doing that is to reduce to the old theory in an appropriate limit. Mainstream BSM research is generally careful about that, but there is no evidence of that in this paper. It's not enough to get a few overall parameters right; one has to get the details right.

 

[Devils]

So why not use gestalt type ideas and instead of creating light from electfons, create electrons from light?

That's just the photoelectric effect. Einstein had something to say about it ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers#Photoelectric_effect

 

[ith]

I have an (amateur) interest for reading about alternatives to SM. However, I think I would need much time to comprehend papers like the one in the topic of this thread, this is why I asked you first, if the paper goes against known empirical facts, to the extent that would likely make its contents improbable.

Perhaps "legit" was an unfortunate work, as it might imply, that I suggest, that the author had a bad intent, what is not the case. I think that courageous attempts at new theories can be very valuable even if the theories themselves not always turn out to be quite right.

Anyway, I would want to thank you for your opinions on the article, and also for the discussion on the various papers presenting BSM approach at a relation between a photon and an electron.