[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

[Chip Akins]

Hi Grahame

 

Your email was quite thought provoking.  Thank you.

I will have to look into how this approach for the electron fits with the
size of the electron deduced from scattering experiments and the near
perfect spherical scattering statistics for the electron.

 

Chip

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 5:44 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Phil Butler <phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz>; Anthony Booth
<abooth at ieee.org>; Stephen Leary <sleary at vavi.co.uk>; Mark, Martin van der
<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>; Solomon Freer <slf at unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

 

Dear Chip & Richard

(and any others who may be interested),

 

Richard (Chip, I've commented on double-loop in response to you further
down):

I'm as sure as you are that you didn't give John W & Martin's
toroidal-photon ref as evidence for your two-loop model of the electron - my
response on that was to John, not you, since he proposed that the evidence I
sought was from their analysis, de Broglie's theoretical work and practical
experiment.  I fully concur with your observation that your model is
consistent with this concept without being proof of it - a point that I hope
I made clear to John in my response.  (More on that double-loop shortly.)

 

With regard to your views on subjective and objective realities: an
objective reality depends not one whit on how many people do, or do not,
believe it; a subjective reality can't be 'promoted' to objective reality
even if every physicist on the planet believes it, if it's not factually
correct.  Subjective reality is what appears to be happening, as a
consequence of factors affecting the observer or measuring device; objective
reality is what is actually happening, irrespective of whether or not
anybody is observing or measuring it (or believes it).

 

Put simply: the question of subjective/objective reality has nothing
whatever to do with belief.  If I dip a straight rod in water it will appear
to have a bend in it at the waterline; this is a subjective impression
('subjective reality'). However we all know that this is an optical illusion
caused by the change in refractive index - nobody believes that the rod has
been bent by being placed in the water; the objective reality is that the
stick is in fact still straight - and that reality is totally independent of
whether everyone believes it, nobody believes it or anything in between.
The fact that the reasons for the apparent (subjective) reality of SR are
rather more complex does not make them any less of an illusion - nor does
the fact that thousands/millions are taken in by that illusion make it any
more of an objectiv truth.

 

Let's take the issue of 'closed time-like curves': subjective experience
leads to the widely-held view that speed-related time dilation is reciprocal
between inertial reference frames; this in turn leads to the belief that the
ability to cross space faster than light is able make that trip (by whatever
means) could lead to time paradoxes and hence breaches in causality.  If, as
the evidence of closed-loop photonic particles indicates, this proposed
reciprocity of time dilation is an illusion, then no amount of belief in it,
by any number of the most erudite brains on the planet, will make it true -
so neither would such belief lead to the possibility of time paradoxes.
Whilst this is not apparent either way from our present state of knowledge,
the truth is most assuredly either one way or the other - and it will not be
swayed in the slightest by our belief, any more than the earth became flat
because at one time the majority of the world population believed it was
flat.

 

By the same token we could concoct the most elegant theory of gravitation
based on the premise of a frame-symmetric universe - and it could turn out
to be no more valid than the old phlogiston theory of combustion.  This
could be disastrous for us as a species if we were more impressed with our
own theories than we were with getting to the root of what's actually going
on - a flawed theory of gravity (or any other aspect of space & time) could
seriously impede our long-term objectives.

 

In brief: my research has led me to a view of the universe in which there is
one unique objectively static rest frame (quite possibly the rest frame of
the CMB), relative to which all photons move with objective speed c in all
directions.  All other frames are states of absolute motion; relative to any
one of those frames photons travel at true relative speeds given by the
vectorial combination of their own speed, c, and the velocity of the frame
in question.  This is the objective reality.

 

However, for reasons too involved to detail here (covering a few chapters
and a couple of mathematical appendices in my book), cyclic-photon particle
formation (including formation of observers and measuring instruments) leads
to a subjective view of reality in which light is measured as travelling at
speed c in every direction no matter which inertial frame the observer may
be moving in (or in one unique case, static in).  This, coupled with
objective time dilation and length contraction in all frames other than the
objectively static frame, leads to a subjective perception of a reality that
conforms with a fully reciprocal 'Lorentz transformed' reality - including
results in particle colliders that appear to conform precisely to such a
perceived reality.

 

I have to say here that I most assuredly did not start out with this view
and seek to prove it - quite the reverse.  I started with an interest in the
nature of time, and the flow of time that leads to the process that may
broadly be described as 'ageing' (in every sense of that word, from
particles to galaxies and everything in between).  I didn't initially regard
that flow as the flow of electromagnetic energy, indeed for some while I
puzzled over the nature of what I labelled 'tau-flux'.  I also regarded SR
as gospel, and worked from that premise - till I began to hit inherent
contradictions.  It then became apparent to me that my 'tau-flux' was in
fact the electromagnetic energy - light - that both forms particles and
transfers information (including what we refer to as 'mass') between
particles.  Over a period of time - more than a decade - it became very
clear that this explained every feature of Special Relativity, without
reference to any special property of light other than the fact that matter
is itself formed from light.  [It has since become clear that every feature
of General Relativity is also fully explained by this structure of matter -
that's another story, which itself requires a broadening of outlook that
those who are still hooked on SR will certainly not be ready for!]

 

If you understand what I've just said - my distinction between the
subjective and objective views of SR - then it should be possible for you
yourself to derive the dual description of a Compton scattering event that
I've referred to.   If that's not possible for you then this suggests that I
haven't put across as clearly as I'd wish the nature of this
subjective/objective reality - so my 6-pager wouldn't 'land' with you
anyway.

 

You ask whether my approach (view) is susceptible to experimental proof.  I
would say that a fair amount of experimental proof already exists for this
view, since there is a whole raft of experiential data for which no
explanation yet exists - the proposal of 'inertial frame symmetry' is no
more an explanation than 'tree sprites' is an explanation for the clear
existence of something we refer to as 'life' in trees; it's a belief in a
metaphysical property for which no scientific reason has yet been advanced.
The view that I present, along with others such as Chip, offers a full and
thorough explanation for all of that data, those perceived phenomena.  Just
as Einstein regarded Fizeau's experiment, from half a century earlier, as
experimental evidence for his theory, that raft of otherwise unexplained
data constitutes a rather substantial body of evidence for the first
proposed explanation for the phenomenon of (perceived) frame symmetry.

 

I can go further than this.  I propose that the extensively experimentally
validated fact of the 'Relativistic Energy-Momentum Relation' can be shown
to reveal a contradiction in the concept of inertial frame symmetry.  Put
together with the evidence of the CMB, of which is stated on the Smoot Group
website: "This would seem to violate the postulates of Galilean and Special
Relativity." (with no suggestion that it actually doesn't - bearing in mind
that Smoot was the Nobel Laureate who mapped the CMB, and so should know),
this gives evidence at both ends of the cosmic scale to support this
explanation for the as-yet unexplained.

 

Chip (and Richard):

===============

I'm fully in support of a static electron being formed from a double-loop of
a single wavelength of a photon.  Apart from anything else this is fully
consistent with the phenomenon of zitterbewegung, supported experimentally
by Gouanere et al (more on this shortly).  However I don't see any reason
(other than a belief in objective SR) to assume that this holds for an
electron on the move (more on this shortly, too).  I don't see this as being
inconsistent with angular momentum.

 

If a static electron is formed from a closed-loop photon then that electron
will take the form of a spiralling photon when it's on the move.  The
frequency of that photon will be increased by factor gamma, however the
momentum of that photon will now be a composite of angular and linear
momentum.  The angular component will be identical to that of the static
electron (corresponding to the cyclic component of that photon motion) - the
true angular momentum of an electron will be invariant.

 

This is of course exactly what one would expect.  If energy in the form of a
linear photon sets an electron in motion then that electron should have
precisely the same angular momentum as it did when static.  Given that the
linear component of photon flow is determined by the linear speed of the
electron itself, and that the speed of the photon is c, these constraints
require that the radius of the cyclic path of the photon remains constant;
the ratio of cyclic to linear speed components doesn't permit otherwise, it
seems to me.

If a photon forming an electron changes from a closed-loop state to a spiral
state (the electron starts moving) then either the electron diameter
contracts or the time per loop increases.  The latter is consistent with SR
(since looping period must extend to match time dilation), it's also fully
consistent with a comprehensive explanation of perceived effects attributed
to SR; the former fulfils neither of these criteria.  [Just one point of
convergence of cyclic-photon particle formation with SR perceptions is the
clear fact that time effects are carried by energy flows - there is nothing
else; by this reasoning the longer cycle time for spiral cycles is the
cause, not just an effect, of particle time dilation.]

 

This longer cycle time is borne out by results of the Gouanere study, which
shows zitterbewegung slowing with particle speed (zitter frequency reduces),
indicating slower looping of the photon; the Gouanere result doesn't in any
way require two cycles per wavelength in the moving particle, simply that
the cycle rate reduces by factor 1/gamma.  This would not be seen for an
electron with diminishing radius and unchanging cycle time.

 

In other words a photon with increased frequency follows a path with
decreased cycle rate.  This is not in any way a problem unless one is
determined to hold on to SR as an objective reality - with no concrete
evidence for that position.  It's not too difficult, by following this
reasoning, to show that such a position is totally untenable.  [It's also
most surely the case that if a cycle takes the same time for static or
moving electron as viewed by a static observer, then the cycle time will be
*less* for a moving electron as viewed by a moving observer (since a cycle
will be a cycle, whatever the observer frame) than a static electron as seen
by that static observer - strictly non-PC non-SR!  Not even subjectively
acceptable!]

 

Note that following this reasoning a complete cycle, as seen from the static
frame, will now take time gamma tau (where tau is 1/nu); given increased
frequency of gamma nu, this gives a 'frequency' per complete cycle of
gamma^2 nu.  I leave you to figure out the various implications of that.

 

Lastly I'd observe that, though from the subjective viewpoint of the moving
observer rest mass and the relationship E = mc^2 both appear to be
conserved, neither in fact hold objectively in any frame other than the
cosmically objectively static frame.  Again, this has fairly major
implications for physics research.

Best regards,

Grahame

 

Dear Dr. Grahame Blackwell

Bravo! Well said.

Regarding the "double loop" of an electron. 

You most likely already know this. 

 

It is my understanding that this is assumed principally because of spin
angular momentum.  Stern-Gerlach experiments and modifications thereof have
presumably measured the spin angular momentum of electrons with fairly high
precision.  

 

Then if the momentum of an EM wave is p=E/c, a double loop with radius
wavelength/4 pi would theoretically yield the correct spin angular momentum.

Of course this is based on many assumptions, but these assumptions seem
reasonable as a basis to start from.

 

Chip

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Richard Gauthier <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>  

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>  

Cc: Phil Butler <mailto:phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz>  ; Anthony Booth
<mailto:abooth at ieee.org>  ; Stephen Leary <mailto:sleary at vavi.co.uk>  ;
Mark,Martin van der <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>  ; Solomon
Freer <mailto:slf at unsw.edu.au>  

Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 4:26 PM

Subject: Re: [General] Photon cycle rate in moving particle - faster
orslower?? - not answered.

 

Hello Grahame,

 

   I completely understand that you don't want these six pages of your book
on the Compton effect in relation to your approach to be viewed "out of
context" of the first hundred or so pages of your book, which sets the
context for these six pages and later pages of your book. Perhaps you could
please send a pdf of the FIRST six or so pages of your book so that I (and
others) can get a better idea of the context in which you are writing. For
example, I am not clear yet about your distinction between subjective and
objective realities. From the human perspective, what people experience
individually as their perceptions and conceptions is their subjective
reality, and when enough people agree about their perceptions and
conceptions this agreed-upon content is called objective reality. From the
point of view of a hypothesized cosmic mind, what humans call their
objective reality is the subjective reality of the cosmic mind. There may be
other distinctions between subjective and objective so I would like to
understand yours in the context of your approach.

 

  When you asked for empirical evidence for my two-looped-photon model of an
electron, I'm sure I did not give the Williamson-van der Mark electron model
hypothesis as such evidence. The double-looped model for me came from my
realization/discovery around 1992 that a single loop of a photon of length
equal to one Compton wavelength h/mc has an exact z-component (perpendicular
to the plane of the loop) of spin of hbar (that of a photon), while a
double-looped photon composed of the same one wavelength h/mc wrapped around
twice has a z-component of spin of exactly 1/2 hbar, the electron's
experimental value. This simple double-loop model of the electron (which I
developed further over the years) happens to be consistent with the fact
that the zitterbewegung frequency 2mc^2/h from the Dirac equation solution
for a free electron is consistent with the double-looping frequency (not the
frequency f=c/lambda corresponding to the energy E=hf of the photon, but
twice this frequency) of a double-looping photon of wavelength h/mc (the
wavelength of a photon having the energy corresponding to the rest mass of
an electron. There is also a Dirac amplitude hbar/2mc from the Dirac
equation solution which is the radius of the double looping photon model of
the electron. None of this is proof of the double-looped model, but is
consistent with the model.

 

    Is your approach susceptible to experimental proof?

 

   with best regards,

     Richard

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160702/97efdebf/attachment.htm>