Hello Ernst,
This a serious charge. Please send me the link to your article. Is your electron model composed of a circulating half-Compton-wavelength spin-1/2 charged half-photon? My electron model was never a photon in a single-looping Compton-wavelength orbit.
Thanks.
Richard
Hello Ernst,
I've looked over your electron model information at your website. You propose a One-Compton-wavelength-circumference photon model.This model gets the magnetic moment correct (up to the Bohr magneton) but not the spin. You calculated the correct electron spin by assuming the electron's charge was spread uniformly over a rotating circular area. I initially proposed a helical double-looping Compton wavelength electron model whose spin 1/2 was due to its double looping Compton wavelength. The model gives the electron spin 1/2 hbar easily and naturally. I got the magnetic moment e hbar/2mc correct (up to the Bohr magneton value) by adjusting the radius of the helically-circling charged photon. This electron model is quite different from your electron model. Several people (not I) have proposed electron models based on a single-loop Compton wavelength photon-like object. So our ideas for modeling the electron are quite different. Also, I challenge you to find any sentences in my work that are the same as any sentences in your work (the definition of plagiarism). So our electron models are not the same (actually quite different) and the words are also not the same.
I call my latest electron model the quantum vortex model of the electron. It is formed by what I call helically-circulating superluminal energy quantum--hence "quantum vortex". Others besides you have also described elementary particles as formed by a vortex. This term was also used in the 1800's.
I appreciate the pioneering work that you, like others, have independently done to try to model the electron by a circulating photon-like object related to the Compton wavelength.
Richard
Richard:
I have no desire to get into a verbal squabble. All I ask is that you cite my prior work along these lines.
To all: I owe an apology to Richard Gauthier for the plagiarism remarks. We have discussed this in detail and I was unaware of the prior work he had done that was similar to mine.
It has taken a while to get around to this because I have trouble navigating around the researchgate system.
Again, my most contrite and humble apologies to Richard
Hello Ernst,
Please delete your charge since it is coming up on a google search and people may not read your retraction . Thanks.
Richard
Richard:
I have tried to do that several times, but it does not seem to possible. I have tried to write over it, which seems to have worked.
Ernst
- Badges
- Science topic