[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

[Richard Gauthier]

Hello Grahame,

  You seem unwilling to present the first few pages of your book to help give us more background and context to your particle model and approach. So I think I’ll pass for now on commenting on your distinction between subjective and objective realities, which is more of a statement of your philosophy of science, and how to know what is “real” in physics. Physicists try to interpret, understand and predict aspects of the physical world, based on ideas, concepts, mathematics, models and objective physical measurements and observations. I think we are all engaged in this in one way or another, despite any differences in our philosophies about the nature of reality.

  I think your model of the electron and other particles should be separable from your particular philosophy of science, so that others who may not share your philosophy of science, as well as those who do, may be able to decide if your model is useful or better than other physical models, for “doing physics”. One way is to look at the models themselves quantitatively and to compare and contrast one model with other models to see how well these models (all relating to photons and particles in our discussion group) stand up to critical scrutiny as well as to experimental support. I think that’s partly what this discussion group is about. I hope you are willing to join in this effort, to point out any defects or limitations in different models, to encourage improvement of weaker models, and to acknowledge any strengths in these or other models, since none of them is perfect.

      Richard
  

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>  
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160703/bf570fdd/attachment.htm>