Richard Gauthier’s electron models deserve a serious look. I am in the process of studying them. I asked Richard few questions and he kindly answered them. His answers were very helpful to me and it may be helpful to others as well. With his permission I am sharing his correspondence here.

Richard would appreciate hearing any comments or questions from readers: richgauthier@gmail.com , copied to sureshemre at gmail.com.

****************************************************

Hello again Suresh,

Thank you again for your detailed comments. Let’s see how I can answer them.

First, I’m not sure which of my articles you have read. Most are at https://santarosa.academia.edu/RichardGauthier

I suggest the ones on inertia if you have not read them: [1], [2], [3] as well as [4]. For the relation to quantum mechanics I recommend [5] as well as [6] and [7] . There’s a little redundancy among some of these papers.

As far as the cause of the containment, or the containment force for the circulating charged photon, it’s a big unknown in physics in general — how the electron’s charge keeps from exploding. There are also the infinity problems associated with point charges which require the mathematics of renormalization in QED to overcome (by a tricky process which Dirac hated). A circulating charged photon raises the additional question of what keeps the photon circulating. None of the several theorists of circulating photon models of the electron who I am in contact with have clear answers, although they try. John Williamson proposes a mathematical “pivot” that gets the photon to circle around, but his approach is highly mathematical — beyond Clifford algebra using algebra that he is inventing himself. Another electron modeler thinks that virtual photons are coming off in one direction to make the circulating photon turn in the other direction.

But the same question could be raised about my open helix TEQ model — why does the TEQ move in a helical trajectory instead of straight? The model doesn’t explain why. But if it moved straight there would be no wavelength or frequency or transverse size of a photon, in the TEQ model.

The double-loop model of the spin 1/2 charged photon (not the TEQ model) requires a calculated centrifugal force of 0.424 Newtons to keep a photon of momentum mc circulating with a radius hbar/2mc as in my model. A single-loop electron model would require a force half of this. But if the circulating charge is moving in some kind of curved space along a geodesic (not discussed in my papers) maybe no force would be required at all for the charged photon to move along this curving geodesic.

The idea that the energy of a sub-atomic particle is contained by a container composed of microvita (or created by microvita) is a very radical proposal from a physics point of view. But P.R. Sarkar said in “Microvita and Cosmology” that this approach is a logical alternative to mass being converted into energy in atomic explosions (and presumably other E=mc^2 reactions like electron-positron annihilations.) In P.R. Sarkar’s approach microvita create sub-atomic particles and atoms, but he doesn’t say how they do it. I wrote the article [8] just to float the concept of microvita in the context of a logical alternative to the conventional theory of mass-energy conversion — a way to challenge status quo thinking.

In my published TEQ photon article [9] , the TEQ photon model is still current, but the electron model composed of TEQ photon has evolved and is not yet published (though I have started on it and have mentioned it on an e-list). In the article above, the helical radius of the helically-circulating charged TEQ was chosen so that the z-component of the magnetic moment of the TEQ electron is exactly the Bohr magneton (except negative for an electron). But this makes the spin of the circulating TEQ photon composing this electron neither spin 1 nor spin 1/2, but something in between. I was not thinking of keeping the spin of the circulating photon in an electron model to be 1 or 1/2 at the time because I was focused on getting the magnetic moment right, and in a resting electron model, the spin of the model is due to the circling of the photon at a radius hbar/2mc and not to the spin of the circulating TEQ photon itself, which averages to zero in a resting electron.

But when I started developing the relativistic electron model, I knew that the electron had to be composed of a spin 1/2 photon (which is also charged) because 1) this particle IS an electron and 2) at highly relativistic speeds the spin of the electron model has to remain 1/2. And I showed in the math of my relativistic electron model that the contribution to the spin due to the radius of the circulating photon drops off to zero as 1/gamma squared, leaving the spin of the charged photon to give its spin 1/2 to the spin of the relativistic electron.

So my current (unpublished) spin 1/2 TEQ electron model is composed of a spin 1/2 charged TEQ photon, whose radius is 1/2 that of the spin 1 uncharged TEQ photon, and which makes two helical turns per photon wavelength instead of the one turn in a spin 1 uncharged photon. Both TEQ’s in the two photon models move at sqrt (2) x lightspeed at a 45 degree forward angle in their open helix versions.

Anyway, you asked about the relation of the TEQ to charge and mass. The TEQ in the spin-1/2 charged photon would carry the charge, and move with a frequency given by E=hf . The TEQ also carries the energy based on its frequency. There is no rest mass in a spin 1 TEQ photon and no charge also. A spin 1/2 photon would (I think) generally be curled up into an electron or positron (or muon or tau particle) and therefore have rest mass, but could initially be straight in electron-positron pair production from a single spin 1 photon having sufficient energy to convert into an e-p pair with sufficient remaining kinetic energy and momentum to satisfy energy and momentum conservation (in the presence of a nearby nucleus which absorbs some momentum during the e-p production). Maybe a positive and negative spin 1/2 photon gain their charge as they quickly curl up, or maybe they have it right away when the spin 1 uncharged photon converts to the 2 spin 1/2 photons.

In my view normal spin 1 photons have inertial mass hf/c^2 although they don’t have any rest mass (as does an electron) unless the spin 1/2 photon is curled up and traveling in a circle (or helix), where then its inertial mass hf/c^2 becomes its rest mass (the inertial mass of a resting particle) as I derive in my inertia article [2]. So the inertia m=E_o/c^2 of a particle with rest energy E_o is derived from the circulating momentum E_o/c of its circulating charged photon (TEQ or otherwise) having energy E_o in a resting particle. If the electron model (composed of a spin 1/2 charged photon) is moving, its inertial mass becomes (by calculation from my relativistic charged photon model) gamma m instead of m for a resting electron, although its rest mass remains (by definition) m.

I think that it is likely that the Higgs field gives speed-of-light particles both their charge AND their rest mass. But my model shows HOW particles get their rest mass from their circulating momentum (through the medium of a helically-circulating spin 1/2 charged photon), while the energy of the Higgs-created particle (called an electron) is still moving internally at c even though the charged particle itself (the electron) moves subluminally.

What about bremsstrahlung? There is no bremsstrahlung from the TEQ even though it is moving at a speed greater than c. Like I suggested above, the TEQ may be moving along its geodesic (created possibly by its charge) and therefore not accelerating on this geodesic.

Is the spin 1/2 charged photon model trying to avoid quantum “wierdness”. No. The weirdnesses (entanglement, double-slit behavior) are experimental facts. In my article [5] I propose that the helically circulating charged photon (I have not done this for the TEQ model yet) generates quantum plane waves which radiate from the charged photon with the charged photon’s frequency and wavelength. These plane waves intersect the longitudinal helical axis to produce de Broglie waves that move along the helical axis with calculated wavelength equal to the de Broglie wavelength, and at a speed equal to the phase velocity c^2/v where v is the electron’s linear speed. These proposed quantum plane waves emitted from the helically circulating charged photon are not bremsstrahlung, which are real energy waves. I suggest that these quantum wave phenomena are also happening in an atom where spin 1/2 charged photons (electrons) are bound to a nucleus but generate de Broglie waves as they move, which form resonances in the atom and lead to the quantum energy levels and quantum eigenfunctions of the atom (this all needs to be derived quantitatively for atomic systems but I think that I’m on the right track, see [10]).

Maybe spin 1/2 charged photons could be observed in isolation, before they curl up to become electrons and positrons. But it would require some very clever experimentalists to work studying e-p pair production microscopically and not purely as an input (spin 1 photon ) and output (electron and positron) process. A detailed theory of HOW a spin 1 photon is transformed continuously into an electron and positron is needed.

Relation of TEQ to classical space and time? The TEQ seems to moving through normal space and time, but so does light as it bends while passing a star, while the starlight is actually following a gravitational geodesic produced by the sun’s mass.

What is the parameter for “anti-ness”? The “anti-ness” parameter of a particle is the helicity of the TEQ in a closed helix model of the particle. In the TEQ electron (the old published TEQ electron model and current unpublished TEQ electron model) the TEQ has one direction of helicity in the electron model and the opposite helicity in the positron model. Turning the spin 1/2 electron model upside down just produces a spin -1/2 electron model but doesn’t generate a positron, whereas the internal helicity of the circulating photon is the opposite of the helicity of the internally circulating photon in an electron model, both in the up and down directions of the positron model.

Relation of spin 1/2 charged photon model to the photino? I don’t see any relation. But recently real photons have been identified having angular momentum (spin) 1/2 (though these photons are uncharged). These have not been called photinos though. This result is not related to supersymmetry as far as I know.

Differences between superluminal TEQ photon and a tachyon? There doesn’t seem to be any similarity except the faster-than-light property. But the TEQ in my old electron model passed easily through c twice in each closed trajectory in an electron, going from superluminal to subliminal and back to superluminal. Tachyons can’t do this as they are constrained by gamma while TEQ’s are not, at least in the same way.

Relation to virtual particles? I don’t see a relationship. Spin 1/2 charged photons would be just as real as electrons since they ARE electrons according to the hypothesis. The circulating TEQ’s (and even the circulating charged photon model) seems to violate conservation of momentum since they travel in a circle or helix without a known force changing their velocity from straight to circular. But violation of particle conservation of momentum was also found in the Dirac equation solution for a free electron, when the zitterbewegung motion of the electron was theoretically derived quantum mechanically in addition to the linear momentum of a moving electron.

Finally, back to microvita. P.R. Sarkar indicated that microvita could travel faster than light in a session with acharyas (I wasn’t there unfortunately, I don’t think). He said something like microvita can travel at 50 (or 15, it wasn’t clear) thousand light years per second. Since microvita carry information, this would be a violation of Einstein’s rule about information not traveling faster than light. But maybe entanglement is actually a microvita phenomenon.

I hope all this has helped. At least its something more to think about, and hopefully add some ideas to.

Richard