Dear Fred,

Great to see your model appear! Although our models differ significantly it's clear that you've put a lot of thought into yours, and it seems to have quite original aspects. It's rather amazing how such different models can be based on the same phenomenological numbers. I believe Fermi said something to the effect that, "with 5 parameters I can graph an elephant." [ which I interpreted to mean that he could draw an elephant with the graph! ] This whole contest seems to be proving the truth of his statement.

I'm a little confused on page 4 where the radius with reduced Compton wavelength is viewed as a spherical energy density, rather than the Zitterbewegung 'helix'. And on page 5 it's unclear how the 'bag' develops discrete charge, mass, spin and magnetic moment. Or how virtual fermions confine the electron. Any remarks you have expanding on these would be appreciated. In particular, I feel that the weakest point in my own model is the introduction of charge, so I am very interested in how others explain this.

I agree with you that the Higgs does not come close to explaining the fermionic mass spectrum, and I also found your remark about the 'half-holes' and matter being actually "less than the quantum vacuum" to be quite interesting!

As there are now several 'particle' models published in this essay contest, and as my own essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, is based upon an actual particle inducing an associated wave function, I will probably add a brief synopsis of my own particle model to my comments blog.

Congratulations on a number of novel ideas, and good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hi Yuri,

    I can't say that I agree with all of your abstract but I will take a look at your essay. I am just not sure that your 1 and 3 matter all that much.

    Any comments about what I have written in my essay?

    Best,

    Fred

    Thanks Edwin,

    I am going to have to do a follow up paper that is more rigorous but I wanted to at least get some of the ideas out there. Somehow if we view the "bare" entity as massless and "going around in circles" at c, there has to be something causing or confining this behavior. A natural candidate would be interactions with the electron's surrounding virtual pairs. I believe this involves the fine structure constant in a geometric way. I had just found that reference to 3-sphere derivation of alpha recently and really haven't had a chance to thoroughly check it out but it looks promising.

    Yes, I was quite shocked myself when my concepts lead to the idea that matter itself is really less than the quantum vacuum or space as some call it. I will write some more about all of this tomorrow. Was a little busy with other things tonight.

    Best,

    Fred

    " ... I was quite shocked myself when my concepts lead to the idea that matter itself is really less than the quantum vacuum ..."

    Hi Fred,

    You bet -- I think most are scandalized by that notion. It logically follows, though, by inverting the "finite and unbounded" interpretation of general relativity from finite in time and unbounded in space, to one finite in space and unbounded in time -- which doesn't change general relativity in the least. It only obliterates the boundary between classical and quantum phenomena, as you suggest, and as Joy Christian's topological structure demonstrates by correlation of all quantum pairs. Eliminate by zitterbewegung (Hestenes) all possibility of an absolute rest state at the quantum scale, and a corresponding privileged inertial frame at the classical -- and one finds that the Planck constant is no longer a barrier to a smooth continuum -- wave function correlation and particle pair correspondence is complete from vaccum state to cosmological scale. Bee Hossenfelder has some interesting words on this subject, too.

    So glad you made it under the wire! Good luck in the contest.

    Best,

    Tom

      Thanks Tom,

      Great different perspective you have given that I hadn't really thought much about before. I will give it some good thought. I have mainly been focused on my interpretation of where modern particle physics has lead us to. Dirac almost had the right concept but didn't really follow it through to its logical completion with his "sea" idea. First we have to reject the notion of negative energy states. That is like accepting the notion of negative absolute length. It is just not there. The energy states are all postive but more like left and right handed states as soon as you have fermions. So the sea is all filled with positive states with complimentary states like electron-positron appearing to be "nulled out". So does that mean we are riding on or in a trememdous sea of positive energy? There is really no way to tell since it is a gauge-like situation. We can only sense changes in energy.

      Well, I got swept away tonight by the political stuff going on so will try to write some more about this soon and to answer more of Edwin's questions.

      Best,

      Fred

      Hi Fred,

      "So does that mean we are riding on or in a trememdous sea of positive energy? There is really no way to tell since it is a gauge-like situation. We can only sense changes in energy."

      I agree. I think we get tangled up in our own underwear when we neglect that a positivity condition inheres in any definition of energy that begs a measured state. (Hence, my essay's claim that half of "reality" is known by default.) I consider Einstein's unreduced equation: E^2 = m^2c^4 (pc)^2 that implies a particle of nonzero mass and zero momentum posseses negative energy. The equation is not untrue; nor is it unphysical -- it means that symmetry between vacuum energy and rest energy compels only one locally real state per measure. Quantum pair correlations, then, depend on the symmetry of continuous measurement functions (just as classical correlations).

      Best,

      Tom

      • [deleted]

      • Post #9

      Just heard Jimi Hendrix:

      " .... castles made of sand

      Fall into the sea.

      Eventually."

      Seemed appropriate.

      Tom

      Dear Fred,

      there is another possibility for explanation of fermion and electron mass, if to take into account substantial model of electron which is described in ยง 14 of the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm: S.G. Fedosin, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0. It is known that the mass of any object (body, particle) is the measure of inertia and energy. In order to understand the reason of mass of bodies we must use mainly concept of strong gravitation. See more about it in my essay.

      Sergey Fedosin Essay

        Hi Sergey,

        Thanks for taking a look. Man, you have a lot of material to digest that looks very interesting. :-) However at the present time, I prefer to stay as close to the Standard Model of Particle Physices as I can. I am only rejecting that the Higgs can give mass to fermions. I could be wrong about that also. Hopefully we will find out one way or the other in a few years.

        Best,

        Fred

        13 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #12

        Hi Fred,

        I read your paper and enjoyed it. It addresses the numerous problems connected with the electron. You looked at some from a different point than usual and animate for further thoughts. I have to go over it again.

        Almost all agree that the mass energy of the electron is dominantly its field energy. Thus its classical physics. The problem is the classical electron radius r_e. It defines a quantum mechanical center which is most interesting. Wouldn't it be reasonable to use massless virtual particles there?

        The mass of the electron can be generated by a circulating massless charge distribution, thus with speed of light, which is embedded in its own synchrotron radiation. The size of the mass is determined by r_e, i.e. by quantum mechanics. If you are interested see

        http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.0620

        Best,

        Guenter

          Hi Guenter,

          Thank you for reading and enjoying my essay. I had read your paper with much interest in doing research for my essay. The biggest problem I had to figure out was what constrains the point-like charge entity to some kind of local circular-like path with speed c and to be stable? The only physical thing available is the quantum vacuum modelled with a Dirac-Fermi field. Thus my approach is to try to get the quantum vacuum "pressure" to equal the "pressure" of the electron as a confining mechanism by using primarily virtual electron-positron pairs.

          The classical electron radius is too small if you consider an energy density volume of that order. And you can see from my hueristic model that the mass volume needs to be of order lambda_C/2pi. Two of the lamba_C's in my model could be somewhat adjusted though by adjusting the associated frequency but probably not by that much. However, I also have the fine structure constant, alpha, to explain in my model. If alpha is due to geometrical effects like I suspect, then we might consider that alpha is reducing the mass volume in the model.

          I notice in your paper after eq. (28) you are going to a flat disk. I had missed that on a first reading so I am going to do some more studying of your idea.

          Best,

          Fred

          • [deleted]

          • Post #14

          Hi Fred,

          A special solution of the synchrotron radiation exists which pulls the charge from a possible outside location onto a circular orbit (Fig. 15 - 17). If you use the Dirac theory you already insert the answer into the solution. It works but doesn't explain it.

          I like your picture of the "pressure" and hope that I have understood it. For an electron at rest there is a pressure from outside to the inside to fix the charge. But quantum mechanics acts on the charge with a disturbing pressure and forces it onto a random path. If this is like a circle (with a radius of the order of r_e) it generates the symmetry breaking.

          I have to think more about your remarks on lamba_C (I am too slow :-( ).

          Best,

          Guenter

          Hi Guenter,

          OK, I have studied your paper some more and hopefully my comments here will also answer some of Edwin's questions above. You have quite an accomplishment to get the circular motion by utilizing synchrotron radiation. But I don't think simple circular motion does the trick as you mention after your eq. (28) you must postulate a "neutrino like object" to get back to spin 1/2 from spin 1. But I notice in your field patterns of Fig. 9 that you could have spin 1/2 from that and that they are similar to what Schonfeld and Wilde was proposing in my ref. 4.

          I have in the past preferred something more like the Hubius Helix by Hu but now I am leaning more towards a 3-sphere geometry to explain spin 1/2 (in fact, I had the idea for the Hubius Helix at the same time or before Hu published his paper but I didn't publish anything about it; only my particle physics tutor knows about it). But I haven't quite figured out the 3-sphere geometry for fermions yet.

          Now, I am not totally clear about charge distribution in your model. I think you are retaining the charge to be point-like or is the charge distributed around the "ring"? How charge is developed is something Edwin asked about above and is also something I didn't talk about in my essay. It is a very difficult concept as you can see by my heuristic model we would have to use mass to explain charge. But possibly charge can be explained by current x time and not have to use mass specifically. The problem really is how to explain charge in a more fundamental way. Of course quantum theory shuffles it to a probability so no real explanation there. For my model, I would have to use the current involved via all the virtual pair interactions somehow. If the zitterbewegung frequency is true, then we maybe have something like 124 amperes of current to account for at the zitterbewegung amplitude of lambda_C/2pi!

          We can see from the fine structure constant equation that e = sqrt(alpha hbar c) in CGS units but what physics is that short hand for? Now we can do something like this,

          hbar c/lambda_C^4 = e^2/(alpha lambda_C^4),

          and have equal energy densities on both sides with no mass involved to try to explain charge. But we still would have to have an explanation for alpha. The fact that we have 4 length dimensions here leads me to believe the solution involves the geometry of a 3-sphere and that alpha is involved somehow in that geometrical solution. Studying Joy Christian's model for "Disproof of Bell's Theorem", I learned a little bit about Hopf Fibration and the torsion involved with that. I suspect that charge (and alpha) is involved with the "twisting motion" of a 3-shere model. So that is what I will be working on to see if I can obtain a better physical model of charge and an explanation of alpha. For now, they have to remain a mystery.

          For another picture of the "pressure" type model, you can see this paper by Puthoff. Of course he takes it to the zero point limit but I think utilizing his idea with the 3-shere geometry I can maybe get the pressure model to be more rigorous at a limit somewhere near lambda_C/2pi.

          Best,

          Fred

          Hi Edwin,

          Sorry it has taken me awhile to respond more to your questions but I have been having a medical issue with my left leg that prevents me from sitting at the computer for very long. Please see my response to Guenter below to see more about my thoughts on charge and alpha. For the "bag" I already showed how mass is possibly developed with my hueristic model. It is simply an interaction between the charge inside the bag (electron) and the charge of virtual fermions outside the bag. It is also pretty easy to get the magnetic moment from that with some simple algebraic manipulation. An explanation of spin, charge and alpha will require more geometry that I haven't settled on an exact model for yet. It is definitely a work in progress still. :-)

          Best,

          Fred

          Hi Fred,

          Well, we certainly agree on one thing: "The problem really is how to explain charge in a more fundamental way."

          I have an explanation, in "The Chromodynamics War", but I consider it possibly the weakest link in my theory. Based on that explanation I can derive the fine structure constant. And my particle does end up with spin 1/2.

          There's certainly nothing wrong with saying: "It is definitely a work in progress still. :-)

          My belief is that you and I will be able to come to agreement before others, because we seem to be concerned with the same things. Let's keep this conversation going beyond the current contest.

          Best,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          • [deleted]

          • Post #18

          Hi Fred,

          To obtain one single track in my model I have to combine 2 wave solutions displaced vertically. Each alone would yield a circular track shifted from the mid-plane. The charge has to oscillate between both. This resembles the Hubius Helix. It could provide the spin 1/2 but I would like more that the spin is connected with the central volume inside r_e. The central volume should be similar to the neutrino and this has spin 1/2. But I don't know what happens inside this quantum mechanical center.

          The charge in my model is still point-like but moves randomly inside r_e. This is a quantum mechanical feature and my model is classical. Also in quantum mechanics the treatment of a singularity is difficult and the charge distribution in my model needs more thoughts.

          The charge itself doesn't need an explanation. One possible configuration of the electric field is the dipole. One half of it forms the charge. The size of it (and the existence of the field at all) is another problem.

          Might be that the equilibrium of the quantum mech. pressure with the outside field creates the elementary charge? But for all particles the same? (I have still to read Putthoffs paper more carefully).

          The field shape explains the energy content and explains the mass. r_e determines its size. The problem is again shifted to r_e.

          For me the Compton wave is natural. Thus the Zitterbewegung the Dirac theory predicts is explained.

          Your relation with lambda_C is very interesting. There must be a basic interpretation possible.

          I enjoyed your discussion about Christian's work in the news groups. But I can't contribute.

          Best,

          Guenter

          8 days later

          After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

          Cood luck.

          Sergey Fedosin

          • [deleted]

          • Post #21

          Hi Fred

          You raise a number of interesting points in your essay, which are all the more interesting to me because my essay model predicts that a particle should be describable by some sort of bag model. My classical physics model has a particle as a black hole topological monopole defect in space with an ergo-region trapping virtual-radiation giving a form of vacuum polarisation where the radiation creates monopole/anti-monopole pairs in space. Such an anti-monopole could re-annihilate with its monopole partner, or it could annihilate with the central monopole - in which case the location of the particle has moved. Repeat this in a cycle and the particle jitters - zitterbewegung. Such a cycle would also give a cycle between particle and wave radiation - wave-particle duality in a bag model?

          Although this zitterbewegung doesn't involve the particle moving at the speed of light, the time component of the metric reversing in the ergo-region could give purely local behaviour inside the bag a non-local appearance, such as the illusion of a massive particle moving at the speed of light and occupying some volume inside the bag - features you mention in your essay. As my bare particle is a black hole of the Planck scale (but no singularity) with an ergo-region trapping virtual-radiation giving a vacuum polarisation effect that reduces the bare Planck mass, this is the reverse of the problem you consider. Could inverting your inverse model back round to a containing bag provide a heuristic model for this mass reduction (or some variation of)?

          The conceptual problem of a point particle is resolved by a Planck scale topological defect, and apparently won't conflict with experiment as such an object cannot be distinguished from a point. The topology of my space gives a spectrum of 12 topological defects with geometric expressions for the particle charges which give the correct range of values and spin as a topological charge. Despite all this, I find that the problem you consider remains - calculating the mass of an electron. I do find agreement with your view that the Higgs mechanism doesn't account for the fermion masses - the bosons yes, but not the fermions.

          Repeating the comment I made on my site for your readers, the S2 surface enclosing the region of the dynamics mentioned above gives an outer boundary for a hidden domain which could potentially match up with Joy's correlation analysis on the outside, whereas the inner region would be that of a bag model. Conceptually the radius of this S2 would have to be the Compton wavelength L=2h/mc because to get a wave interference pattern the extended bag-object/hidden-domain-object would need to extend over multiple slits - but I can't calculate L or m. Your essay and comments discuss a problem finding electron charge, but if this is determined by the geometry of a compactified space (the value of spin as well) does that help with the heuristic for the electron mass?

          Michael

            Dear Fred,

            Nice essay. Two ideas I appreciate in particular,

            1. The gravitational idea: neutral half-holes in the quantum vacuum would have an attraction many orders of magnitude smaller than the "forces," and this attraction would be present for all "particles" because the elementary fermions would all be points of low pressure.

            2. The geometric mass generating scheme.

            I have no idea if these ideas are right, but they're certainly original and things I wouldn't have thought of myself! Good luck in the contest, and take care,

            Ben Dribus

              Hi Ben,

              Thanks for reading my essay. The idea of gravity being the result of matter being less than the quantum vacuum is very non-intuitive. But if we are to take quantum field theory seriously, it leads to that result. A few years ago, John Baez, then a moderator of sci.physics.research told me that idea may be compatible with General Relativity when formulated in a pressure mode. Unfortunately, I can't find the discussion on the Googlegroup archives.

              IMHO, the only way to fundamentally derive the elementary fermion masses is going to be by the geometry of interactions in the quantum vacuum. The Higgs mechanism does work in an ad hoc way but the Higgs is too simple to give all the different necessary couplings required. Plus if the Higgs is 125 GeV, what about the coupling for the top quark mass? So... the way I see it is that the void is not only filled with a Higgs field giving the gauge bosons masses, but it is also filled with a Dirac-Fermi field. Just seems natural with what we know about the Standard Model of particle physics. Michael Goodband has done some very good work on using 3-sphere and 7-sphere geometry to derive elementary fermion properties. I think what is left is to figure out the geometrical packing of the spheres in the quantum vacuum to be able to get the masses; a multi-dimensional version of what I presented in my essay. It is beyond my current capabilities though.

              I have your essay queued up to read next. It looks very interesting.

              Best,

              Fred