[Vern]

Yes. When I am allowed to describe the electron.

Edit: It works with an electron but it is easier to understand in terms of a photon. This photon consists only of changing electric and magnetic fields. The fields saturate at two points, one positive and one negative. The fields around the points drive the points through space. Interaction is more likely to occur near the points of saturation.

The fields go through all slits and determine where the points go.

[JP (OP)]

Vern, can you show the mathematics of exactly how it produces a 2-slit interference pattern for an electron?  An argument using words isn't sufficient, since there are plenty of arguments that can't be backed up with quantitative predictions.

Edit: I know you had a thread in new theories proposing this model, too, so if you just want to link to the post in that thread where you cover the mathematics, that's fine too.

[Vern]

The question is too important to relegate it to an obscure section. I did explain it in New Theories. But there is another question that we should be able to explore in a forum that deals with settled reality. (not settled theory)

Can we describe an electron that will behave as they are observed to behave in double slit experiments without resorting to superposition (new) theory?

The answer is yes. The maths are Maxwell's equations as they apply to adjacent points in space as Lorentz suggested.


Neutron Model from New Theories.

[JP (OP)]

The answer is yes. The maths are Maxwell's equations as they apply to adjacent points in space as Lorentz suggested.

Can you show actual mathematics supporting that?  I'm very familiar with Maxwell's equations, but I can't see how you get from them to explaining the electron fully.

[Farsight]

For the record, I read Vern and associated material including http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html in 2007 after reading material by other authors, and produced a "synthesis" that turned out to have a lesser contribution from me than I originally thought. Whilst I use somewhat different language, for example talking about geometry and a single electromagnetic field, I share Vern's sentiment. I agree with his statement The electron is comprised of one photon trapped in a resonant pattern spinning at the speed of light. Whatever your opinion on Vern's particular details or the adequacy of the mathematics, don't forget the evidence of pair production and annihilation along with angular momentum and magnetic moment. The bottom line is this: what else can the electron be?

[PhysBang]

Whatever your opinion on Vern's particular details or the adequacy of the mathematics, don't forget the evidence of pair production and annihilation along with angular momentum and magnetic moment. The bottom line is this: what else can the electron be?

But, of course, we must also remember that you have never provided any details about this magic process of yours, details that you alternately say are either simple or tricky. There is no choice but to conclude that you really have no complete theory and no evidence.

As it is now, an electron is an electron. If one wants to say otherwise, one has to demonstrate how saying otherwise actually captures the facts about the measured behaviour of electrons.

[JP (OP)]

The bottom line is this: what else can the electron be?

If you insist on knowing what an electron is made of, I'd say the most plausible answer is in using string theory.  Unlike the electron-as-photon models described here, string theory has mathematical details that quantitatively describe the electron and match current theories and also provide testable (albeit not in the foreseeable future) properties beyond the current models.

[yor_on]

JP, what testable qualities are you speaking of?
Like how the spin comes to be?

And what are the ideas for testing it?
Even if we can't do it now.

[JP (OP)]

As I understand it, spin in string theory has to do with ways in which the strings (which make up the particles) can rotate.  It is apparently a mathematically rigorous theory that does predict all the properties of the electron and other particles, although I don't understand it well enough to give you details. 

The problem is that it's not currently directly testable.  The smaller the object you want to look at, the more energy you need to do so.  The problem with strings is that they're so tiny, that no foreseeable experiment that I'm aware of will have enough energy to be able to see them.  There might be some signs of them at the LHC, but nothing to directly "see" strings.

[yor_on]

Okay
Good enough. Now for a new headache of mine
Electrons fundamental properties  Yep, it has a mass..

But in graphene you will apparently find 'Massless Dirac Fermions' aka, as I understands it, massless electrons? 

Superpositioned too?

[Robro]

Whatever your opinion on Vern's particular details or the adequacy of the mathematics, don't forget the evidence of pair production and annihilation along with angular momentum and magnetic moment. The bottom line is this: what else can the electron be?

But, of course, we must also remember that you have never provided any details about this magic process of yours, details that you alternately say are either simple or tricky. There is no choice but to conclude that you really have no complete theory and no evidence.

As it is now, an electron is an electron. If one wants to say otherwise, one has to demonstrate how saying otherwise actually captures the facts about the measured behaviour of electrons.

Please see the link above to Vern's published works, pay special attention to the part where it describes, in detail, the mathematical relationship of a photon with certain frequency to the electron. Use the yellow buttons at the top to navigate through the pages. Very interesting.

[Farsight]

PhysBang: you still don't seem to have picked up on the fact that evidence isn't in mathematics, it's experimental.

Robro: nature's evidence is enough for me. It outweighs everything else. 

JP: quite. There is no evidence that the world is made of tiny vibrating strings, and no associated predictions. However, there is the undeniable evidence of pair production and annihilation. There's also Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon it Energy content? where Einstein says If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c². Go back to Newton and he says Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another?. So I'll stick with observable evidence and go with Newton and Einstein and E=mc².

[PhysBang]

PhysBang: you still don't seem to have picked up on the fact that evidence isn't in mathematics, it's experimental.

No, I have asked you repeatedly to show how your theories match even one experiment. You have never provided such a detail. Thus you fail to meet any standard of experiment. You constantly change your tune and shuffle around. In this thread, we have seen ample evidence of how you desperately try to avoid having to answer any direct question about experiment. I asked you about the Stern-Gerlach device experiments, the main experiment about electron rotation and, in between saying that it was easy for you and then that it was tricky, you failed to say anything about experiment.

Go back to Newton and he says Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another?.

Stop quoting Newton's alchemical ramblings and actually address an experiment. You'll soon see that your theory gets nowhere and you'll have a lot more time on your hands.

[JP (OP)]

This thread is going in circles, so I'm going to go ahead and lock it.  I think the relevant points have been discussed in plenty of detail.