Alternative Models of Reality

Ms. Woodward,

Your appear to speculate that a fluid-like medium exists through which gravity and electromagnetic phenomena act that is undetectable to all of our current sensors. This is similar to an idea I proposed in a book I self-published a few years back (primarily to formally document my thoughts). I have attached an excerpt from the book for you that may further stimulate your thinking on the subject.

Hope this helps,

Bill Stubbs.Attachment #1: gravity_book_excerpt.pdf

Ms. Woodward,

Bill Stubbs, again.

In your May 14th post above, you request some discussion on spin angular momentum and spin magnetic moment. You also comment on the size of the electron, noting that current estimates do not support its magnetic moment being just the particle spinning. I have done some work that you may find interesting (and hopefully, useful) along these lines.

I have attached a copy of an article I published in Infinite Energy magazine last November. In it, I show that deep inelastic scattering data suggests that the proton is made of nine muons (each of which is made of about 1,835 electrons and positrons) rather than a collection of quarks and gluons. Pertinent to your inquiries is that I propose that free electrons are made of the electrons found in the muons (which I call beta electrons) coupled with a neutrino. Free positrons are the positrons found in the muons (beta positrons) coupled with an antineutrino. The neutrinos in the free electron and free positron account for what appears to be a slightly great mass in them than in the electrons and positrons in the muons.

I show that the Bohr magneton, which approximates the electron magnetic moment, does so because it assumes the electron to be a thin-shelled hollow sphere. The magnetic moment is proportional to the "moment of charge" of the sphere, which is calculated like the moment of inertia, but with the mass replaced by charge. Using my two-particle coupled model of the electron, I show that, if the beta electron component of my free electron is in orbit around the neutrino at the center of the complex particle, the moment of charge of the beta electron orbiting the neutrino is equal to that of an electron as a thin-shelled hollow sphere. This, consequently, produces the Bohr magneton component of the electron magnetic moment. The high-frequency precession of the orbit about the neutrino actually scribes out a thin-shelled hollow sphere around the neutrino.

However, there is another component of the moment of charge in the beta electron-neutrino model of the free electron, the moment of charge of the beta electron, independent of its motion around the neutrino. We can assume this small contribution to the moment of charge generates the correction to the Bohr magneton (0.00116) that produces the slightly larger electron magnetic moment.

My article goes on to discuss that the similarity of the g-factors that correct the electron and muon magnetic moments (1.00116 for the electron and 1.00117 for the muon) suggests that the muon and electron must be about the same size dimensionally. Assuming the nine muons that make up the proton are tightly packed spheres, using a proton radius of about 0.875 fermis, the radius of a muon becomes about 0.32 fermis. A free electron this size is about 1/9 the classical electron radius of about 2.8 fermis. This makes the radius of the beta electron component of the free electron about 0.014 fermis.

This summary may seem confusing, but I think I do a decent job of explaining it all in the article. A further explanation of why I believe the proton is nine muons instead of the three valence quarks, a host of sea quarks and gluons is in a paper I have published on vixra at http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0116v1.pdf .

Again, I hope this is useful to you.

Bill Stubbs.

The finished article I tried to attach in the post above was to large, so here is a raw version of it.Attachment #1: Structures_of_the_Proton_Muon_and_Electron-10.pdf

LIGO's Gravitational Waves is a Fraudulent Discovery.

It creates much more mysteries and myths. The notion that Einstein had predicted the existence of the LIGO's GWs is also not the whole truth and misleading.

On May 5, 2017 Hannah Osborne wrote:

"Gravitational waves might be used to uncover hidden dimensions in the universe. By looking at these ripples in spacetime, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Germany say we could work out what impact hidden dimensions would have on them, and use this information to find these effects." ("Gravitational Waves Could Help Us Detect the Universe's Hidden Dimensions" - Newsweek)

Wow! This scientific joke has gone too far. Now, it throws some scientists into a hidden dimension of the Universe!

https://www.academia.edu/33091616/LIGOs_Gravitational_Waves_A_Fraudulent_Discovery

Steve and William, thank you for your replies and for sharing your ideas.

William I read your gravity piece and your paper on vixra about particles. What you do with the particles to get the spin magnetic moment of the electron seems very complicated and I don't understand how it works to give 1/2 integer spin required. Whereas, to my mind, the relative phase difference for different orientations of 1 kind of vibration (that I suggested) seems simple and to be the sort of explanation that could suffice for all kinds of fermion to give them the 1/2 integer spin required by quantum physics. I imagine a potential difference would cause alignment of orientation of the electrons leading to the magnetic field of a conductor carrying a current. I think it may be necessary to accept that it isn't spin really, it just has that name.

Georgina,

You are correct in observing that I do not directly address the spin-1/2 aspect of the electron magnetic moment. However, I do show that the magnetic moment can be obtained by assuming the electron is a thin-shelled hollow sphere spinning at an extremely high frequency.

The dimensions of the magnetic moment are joules per tesla (J/T). These units reduce down to Coulombs meters-squared per seconds (C-m2/s). This make the magnetic moment, mu, look like moment of charge, I (with units C-m2), times frequency, nu(with units s-1), or,

mu = I x nu.

This implies that the magnetic moment of the electron is due, in part, to its spinning. The moment of charge for a hollow sphere electron is I = 2/3qr2, where q is its charge (-1.602 x 10-19 C), and r, its radius. Currently, the classical radius of the electron is thought to be about 2.8 fermis. These values make the electron moment of charge about -2.55 x 10-48 C-m2. If we use the Bohr magneton as the magnetic moment of the electron (-9.27 x 10-24 C-m2/s), dividing it by the moment of charge suggests that the electron is spinning at a frequency of about 4 x 1024 rotations per second. Pretty high!

So, based on my analysis, I believe the electron's magnetic moment is caused by it spinning.

As for the spin value of ½, my understanding is that the electron (and the other subatomic particles) can spin about two of its three Cartesian axes. Its spin is ½ because it takes two revolutions about one of the axes; let's call it the primary axis, for it to complete one revolution about the other (secondary) axis. This means that when it has made one revolution about its primary axis, it has only made ½ revolutions about its secondary axis. In other words, if it starts in a given orientation, it takes two revolutions about the primary axis for it to get back to the starting orientation. If it revolves an odd number of times, it is only halfway back to the starting orientation. If a particle completes one revolution about its secondary axis for every revolution about its primary axis, it is a whole-spin particle. Finally, particles that do not spin about their secondary axis, like photons, are zero-spin particles. This is my understanding of it. You probably already knew of this explanation.

I hope this helps,

Bill.

Hi William, you have an idea of how to get very high spin but you are giving up on the electron being a funadamental particle. It makes me think that if the free electrons are all closely associated with their own neutrino there would be some experimental evidence of that by now. Why hasn't it been noticed? I'm also thinking that spin statistics theory may not be modelling what is actually going on and so producing a theoretical composite entity to fit the spin model might not be the way to go; but each to their own I suppose.

The vibration idea produces two phases that exist in superposition. The electron doesn't have one phase or the other but both. I'm thinking that ought to give the necessary up or down and no intermediate result that is obtained from Stern Gerlach apparatus experiments.

Hi Georgina,

You are right; I don't think that the free electron is a fundamental particle. I believe that its primary mass and charge component, which I call a beta electron, is fundamental. This is the particle orbiting the neutrino in my free electron model. The beta electron is not only a component of free electrons, but also of muons, which I believe are components of the proton.

With regard to experimental evidence, what experiments reveal depends strongly on what the people interpreting the results are looking for. Big discrepancies from prevailing beliefs revealed by experiments (such as the deep inelastic scattering experiments in the 1960s revealing that the proton is not fundamental, but made of component particles) cannot be ignored. However, subtle implications can easily be dismissed or somehow explained away to preserve the prevailing beliefs. In the case of the electron, I think beta decay of unstable nuclei provides experimental evidence of the composite electron; but because historically, the particle observed seemingly exiting the nucleus during the decay was not thought to have originated in the nucleus, the point was missed.

To supposedly conform to the Uncertainty Principle, in beta decay, an electron (miraculously) appears outside the previously unstable nucleus, while the charge of that nucleus increases by +1 and its mass decreased slightly, but the electron did not come from inside the nucleus. Also, because of conservation of energy and angular momentum problems with that interpretation, the appearance of a neutrino was later added to the explanation. As I discussed in a paper I attached to an earlier post, the simpler (and I think more reasonable) explanation is that the nucleus emitted the (beta) electron to stabilize itself. Once outside the nucleus, the beta electron caused the production of a neutrino-antineutrino pair, from which the beta electron captured the neutrino to form a free electron, leaving a residual antineutrino.

One might argue that, if in the above scenario a neutrino antineutrino pair could be produced, why couldn't an electron-positron pair be produced from which the nucleus captures the positron to increase its charge, leaving the residual electron as a decay product? The short answer is that adding a positron to the nucleus would increase its mass, but the mass of the nucleus actually decreases as a result of beta decay. The nucleus loses mass as a result of the decay.

This is just my interpretation of the decay. Of course, I have no standing or authority within the physics community. So, as with my other interpretations such as the proton made of muons and the complex free electron, it is not seriously considered, regardless of any merit it may have. What can you do?

I read your model of electron vibration paper, but I haven't quite digested it yet. When you say electrons vibrate, it seems you don't mean like particles experiencing Brownian motion, but that the electrons are somehow oscillating internally. If I'm wrong about this, please provide more description of the nature of the vibration. If my understanding of your vibrating electron is near correct, I can see why you think that my two-particle complex electron would not support your model, and also why spin would seem to be a problem for it. However, if the orbit of the beta electron around the neutrino in my model is elliptical, the movement of the massive beta electron through its orbit could produce an effect similar to your vibrating (oscillating) electron (a circular orbit works, too). The mass (and charge) would move back and forth from side to side. Just a thought. As I said, I'm still trying to understand your proposal. Any additional information such as diagrams or calculations would be useful and greatly appreciated.

All,

I think that I can propose a physical mechanism for length contraction. This is a new concept to me. If I am simply restating something that has already been proposed by others then please accept my sincere apology.

In my FQXi essay "Five Part Harmony", I present a 5-D model for the wave-function. The obvious questions to ask are: "What are these two extra dimensions? Why do I not experience them?"

These can best be answered by simplifying what has been presented. For an inertial reference frame, only one spatial dimension is needed. The unit vector u become one of the three unit vectors i, j, or k. Therefore, the 5-D model becomes a 3-D model built from the complex plane and the 1-D spatial dimension.

Your next question is probably: "Wonderful! But how the heck does that help any?"

Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell offer an answer to this. Electro-Magnetism and light were shown to be inter-related. The electric field and the magnetic field were shown to be perpendicular to each other and light was shown to be an EM propagation travelling at c with c being determined by properties of the vacuum.

The complex plane can now be seen to represent Electro-Magnetism and the spatial direction is seen to correspond to the direction of motion of light. Essentially, the model that I presented combines Geometry with Electro-Magnetism.

Your next comment is probably: "Wonderful! But you still have not presented a mechanism for length contraction."

Albert Einstein spoke of "rigid bodies". Instead, let us speak of atoms. We know that most of the mass of an atom is contained in a very spatially small nucleus. We also know that the electrons of an atom are spatially distributed over a much larger volume than the nucleus. We also know that the physical and chemical properties of the elements are determined by the inter-actions between the electrons.

Now I can present the hypothesis. Suppose that an atom's total energy is the sum of its kinetic energy plus the potential energy associated with its electron orbitals. If this sum is constant, it follows that as kinetic energy increases, the electron orbitals must get closer to the nucleus because that represents less potential energy. This decrease in orbital size would correspond with a decrease in the size of the atom and of everything made of atoms, and this decrease would be totally imperceptible within that reference frame. Comparisons with other reference frames might be a problem though:-)

BTW, I had problems with my internet last week and was visited by a very congenial old fellow who was the ATT technician. He seemed to know a lot for a technician. I had these ideas after his visit. His name was Albert. What a long, strange trip it has been.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Gary,

"I can propose a physical mechanism for length contraction"

You can, but that would be incorrect. Length contraction is a logical consequence of Einstein's 1905 postulates, and one has no right to add anything that is not deducible from the postulates. This is the essence of the deductive approach.

For the same reason one cannot add "granularity" to spacetime but Sabine Hossenfelder and Sean Carroll could't care less.

Pentcho Valev

Hi William,

Thanks for your answer. The motivation for the vibration model is to provide a working classical description that fits Stern Gerlach apparatus experimental results without the need for impossibly large amounts of hidden variable data to be carried or impossibly high spin. With a working classical model it isn't necessary to accept spooky action at a distance -rather a mechanism is provided whereby the particles communicate their own states to the environment they encounter and 'precipitate' the outcome themselves. Interestingly they are a classical superposition prior to the provocation of the Stern Gerlach apparatus acting to give a preferred orientation that remains after the test, so a same test will give same outcome again.

I think its simplicity is something in its favour. I don't need to rewrite a lot of particle physics to support it. By vibration I do mean an oscillation back and forth along an imaginary line. I don't currently have a why for that but will just call it intrinsic, as spin is currently considered an intrinsic property in mainstream physics. The way the phase of the oscillation is encountered on either side gives a good reason for there being no magnetic mono-poles (Maxwell equation 3).

I have described how the alignment of the phase can give magnetism of a magnet. This following thought is not in that preciously attached paper: If a potential difference causes alignment of the magnetic moment perpendicular to the flow of change, electron oscillation will be perpendicular to it, making me wonder whether that 'synchronized' transverse motion can account for the propagation of electrical energy far faster (near light speed) compared to the slow charge movement under the influence of the potential difference.The transverse orientation of the magnetic moment and alignment of opposite side phases will also give the magnetic field going around the wire.

Evidence favour of quantum vibration rather than quantum spin.(I'd like to hear arguments against.)

Quote: "Spin is a bizarre physical quantity. It is analogous to the spin of a planet in that it gives a particle angular momentum and a tiny magnetic field called a magnetic moment. Based on the known sizes of subatomic particles, however, the surfaces of charged particles would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order to produce the measured magnetic moments. Furthermore, spin is quantized, meaning that only certain discrete spins are allowed. This situation creates all sorts of complications that make spin one of the more challenging aspects of quantum mechanics." Kurt T. Bachmann of Birmingham-Southern College quoted in scientific American

Hund's rule: Electrons are repulsive to one another and only pair after all the orbitals have been singly filled. (via chemphys.armstrong.edu)

The vibration model allows the electrons within the proximity of the same orbital to be continually moving, at the same rate, and the electrons to be maximally separated over a complete phase of movement. Spin does not give the same intuitive separation /avoidance picture of what is happening. Spin doesn't really provide a comparable 'mechanism' of avoidance and has the speed problem.

Hi all, I think this may better describe what I mean about orientation and relative phase 'state' of electron vibration. I'm sorry its hand drawn curves and so a bit untidy but conveys the ideas I think.

Comments? Corrections?Attachment #1: electron_pair_vibration.png

The curves are showing electron behaviour over time rather than representing electron particles themselves. That wasn't clear on the labels. The roughness of the curves is just due to how the diagrams 'evolved' and isn't symbolic.The vertical axis of the curves is one dimension of space and the horizontal time. The flip following the rotation is just about the representation, keeping it consistent. If the behaviour is rotated, it is just rotation in space so the flip allows the direction of the representation of passage of time to point the same way; making comparison easier. The first two curves also illustrate the way in which electrons can largely avoid each other in a same orbital while constantly moving. The smaller curves are showing the opposite movement of a pair along a second dimension of space as in an entanglement experiment.

A thought: Maybe on larger than than single electron scales spin can produce a magnetic moment because the vibration of the free electrons align perpendicular to the orientation of spin and thus the magnetic moment is produced, but for a single electron there is no other electron vibration to align its orientation with so causal spin is not needed to account for the magnetic moment. Overcoming the impossibly high intrinsic spin requirement issue.

"FASTER THAN LIGHT" in Two Modes of Motion

While we all agree that "In the universe nothing could move faster than light", there are objects, galaxies, stars, planets... moving faster than light at the edge of the expanding Universe. Why?

Because we have two different modes of motion, with different effects, that cause the objects in movement to receive different physical consequences:

1- The object moves by itself.

2- The object moves within another moving object, or inside an environment that is in motion.

https://www.academia.edu/33316019/_FASTER_THAN_LIGHT_in_Two_Modes_of_Motion

Hello FQXi members

What is the reality of nature?

I am a independent researcher who has studied the theory of relativity for a long time. I was not certain on the validity of theory of relativity. Therefore, I have investigated the logical structure of this theory by myself for the last four years. It was an extensive and demanding works, which included many aspects such as language, mathematical logic and set theory, philosophy, theoretical physics, and experimental physics. You can see my research at

https://philpapers.org/profile/481726

I'd like to find a way to review my research and discuss with others about the reality of nature. Please help me with this matter.

Hi Joosoak Kim,

I am not a member but I took a quick look at your profile page that introduces some of your thoughts.

Quote "The reasonable geometric model of space and time is a three dimensional space which is translating along the time direction. This model legitimately represents the true characteristic of nature." Can you please elaborate on What moving along the time direction means to you? Since it is not a spatial dimension in what sense does it have direction?

Hi Georgina

Think carefully the meaning of the word MODEL or TOOL.

Model is introduced for comparison, not identical to the original one.