[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Tue Jul 5 06:15:04 PDT 2016

Hi Richard and Grahame

The three of us have different models for the confined energy propagation
within the electron.

1.      Grahame's model has no contraction of the radius.

2.   Richard's model has the radius contracting at a rate of 1/ γ^2.

3.   Chip's model has the radius contracting at the rate 1/γ.

1.   In Grahame's model the spin ½ hbar property is presumably preserved.

2.   In Richard's model the spin ½ property is either not preserved or
exotic means must be used to try to calculate this property.

3.   In Chip's model the spin ½ hbar property is presumably preserved.

1.   In Grahame's model the electron size in scattering experiments seems to
be larger than measured.

2.   In Richard's model the electron size in scattering experiments seems to
be very significantly smaller than the maximum size limit measured in high
energy scattering.

3.   In Chip's model the electron size in scattering experiments seems to be
a just a bit smaller than the maximum size limit measured in high energy
scattering.

1.   In Grahame's model, time dilation is experienced internal to the
particle.

2.   In Richard's model (I don't know Richard's perspective for time
dilation for his model)

3.   In Chip's model, time dilation is experienced external to the particle,
in interactions with other particles.

There are many other significant differences in these models.  We have each
explored this problem from different perspectives. 

There is really a very slim likelihood that any of these models is really
correct in every sense.

But we are hopefully in the process toward that goal.

Grahame, If energy added to the electron to accelerate it increases the
frequency of the confined wave but does not reduce its confinement radius I
think the spin ½ property would be in question. The momentum of a wave is
p=E/c so the momentum would increase with energy, holding the same radius
against this momentum would increase the spin angular momentum???

Regarding the concept of a reference rest frame in space.  I am of the
belief that such a frame exists (even though it is quite difficult for us to
detect what that frame is). But as Grahame has pointed out, the universe
doesn't care what I believe, or what all humans believe. It is what it is,
and we are privileged to learn from it if we choose to do so. But if we want
to increase in our understanding we must be willing to evaluate all
possibilities, logically, even if that violates the fervent beliefs of our
peers.

If we build our knowledge on a shaky foundation, it will become a shambles.
I think that in certain ways physics has had a 100 year wall preventing
further significant progress.  In my opinion there are two reasons we have
not made more significant progress in the last 100 years. Our
misunderstanding of the subject of "relativity" and the Copenhagen school of
thought with regards to scientific exploration.  We stopped looking for
causal, deterministic solutions. When we did that we stopped doing real
science. If we want to see the full spectrum of possibilities we need to
take the sunglasses of relativity and QM off for a while.

Ok, now I am finished standing on my soapbox.  Someone else may take a turn.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 10:59 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Hello Grahame,

   Thank you very much for attaching the first eight pages of your book. It
gave a very good idea of what is to come later in the book, but it gave no
details of your spun-light particle model itself. I have gotten the
impression from your article that I also read that a) the spun-light
particle is composed of a photon moving circularly or helically (depending
on the inertial frame) at light speed, b) the lightspeed of the circulating
photon would therefore be the same as measured from any inertial frame, c)
the radius of the helical motion of the circulating photon would be
independent of the speed of particle, d) an electron would be modeled by a
double-looping photon with the above properties, e) the observed frequency
of looping of the photon in a moving electron would decrease with increasing
speed of the particle due to time dilation, f) the frequency of the photon
itself would increase with the increasing speed of the particle due to the
particle's increased energy. I hope you will correct me if any of these are
incorrect.

    I think I understand better your distinction between subjective and
objective reality: a) All observations or physical measurements by an
observer of a phenomenon (like observing and photographing a stick that
looks bent in water) are "subjective" by your definition. b) The
straightness of a straight stick is an objective fact, again by your
definition of "objective", no matter how many people view the stick as bent
in water. c) You assume that the objective straightness of a straight stick
can somehow be known independently of any measurement or observation of the
stick, which would only give subjective, observer-dependent knowledge of the
stick. My question here is, how can you ever know if a stick is really
(objectively) straight if you (or anyone else or a group of qualified
physicists and technicians) cannot absolutely rely on any "subjective"
physical measurements of the stick by any conceivable measurement process?
My answer: You can't. Please show me how this is a wrong conclusion. 

   It strikes me as unbelievable that you can somehow conclude from your
hypothetical spun-light model of particles that there is some frame in the
universe that is absolutely at rest, whether this is based on CMB
measurements (which are in your view subjective and cannot determine
objective fact) or some other measurement process (which would also be
subjective). 

   Your statement [Now that science has confirmed that electrons are formed
from photons of light-type energy, it's clear that this waveform is simply
the photon wave.]

  seems to imply that you think it has been proved experimentally that an
electron is composed of a photon. Do you really think that "an electron is
composed of a photon" is experimentally proved by the experimental creation
of an electron from two interacting photons?

   You choose to not participate in critically analyzing another person's
electron model that you think is false. You might consider that pointing out
a mistake in another person's theoretical model (whether already published
or not) is doing a favor to that person so that they won't waste their own
time (while possibly wasting many other people's time also who download
their faulty article) continuing to  believe and hope that their theoretical
model of an electron can only be disproved or discredited by experiment and
not by serious conceptual or calculational errors in their model, that they
themselves overlooked and would not have published with these errors if they
had known about them.

   You have such a strong belief in the correctness of your own model of
physical reality derived from spun-light models of particles that you offer
a series of online classes to teach it to others for a fee. Yet I have not
seen any explanation so far about why your particle model (say for an
electron) is consistent with the well-known experimental size determination
of a highly relativistic electron as less than about 10^-18m ,  as found in
high energy electron scattering experiments at around 30 GeV. Your own
electron model would continue to have the same radius at 30 GeV as at rest
(around 10^-13 m). Can you explain how your electron model is consistent,
rather than highly inconsistent, with this well-known experimental electron
scattering result?

With best wishes,

      Richard

On Jul 4, 2016, at 4:01 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com
<mailto:grahame at starweave.com> > wrote:

Hi Richard, Chip, Chandra (et al),

I have attached at Richard's request a copy of the first 10 pages of my book
(after index etc); this comprises the first section of my book, the
Introduction.  I believe you'll see from this my philosophy and my
objectives in undertaking my own line of scientific research.  This is not
to identify or define a suitable model for a photon-formed electron - though
that is to a limited extent an inevitable by-product of my investigations -
but rather to resolve what I have come to see, over some years, as
inconsistencies, incompleteness or scope for further understanding in the
generally-accepted model of physical reality.  [Note that, whilst holding
firmly to scientific principles, this book is intended to be comprehensible
for the most part by non-specialists; this introduction should be read with
that in mind.]

Chandra, I was most impressed (I might even say 'excited') by your paper
presented last year at the SPIE conference, which you have just circulated
(I found myself saying "yes!" out loud several times whilst reading it).
I'd like to think that the contents of my book are in the spirit of the
outward-looking 'Perpetual Scout' scientific approach that you advocate*; I
have for some time been concerned by the attitude of science that appears to
take the line: "We've got it all correct to date, now we just need to fill
in the fine detail" (whilst happily accepting the unexplained 'fact' of
Special Relativity and the unexplained apparent serendipity of Quantum
Mechanics).  I'm also very enthused by your view that we need to be thinking
NOW about how we can ensure that we're still around beyond our parent star's
main sequence; alignment with cosmic evolution, rather than trying to force
our will on it, seems to be a patently obvious strategy.

[* The concept of reverse engineering both physical reality and the
evolutionary process is one that I believe has been central to my research.]

Richard, no matter how much I try I can't find any common ground between our
respective understandings of the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' as
applied to material reality.  For me the term 'subjective' is crystal clear
in its meaning: it relates to a situation, event or scenario as experienced
by an individual or group (possibly a very large group) of individuals -
including 'experience by proxy' through instrumentation.  In this situation
the sensors of this/those individual(s) - including possibly
electromechanical sensors - mediate that experience and thereby provide
input to (i.e. variation of) that experience over and above the actuality of
the (objective) event or scenario being experienced.

By contrast the term 'objective' refers to the object - the situation, event
or scenario itself.  With regard to that object it matters not one iota what
people think - even a great number of highly intelligent people - it will
not re-shape itself to conform to their thoughts.  For example, everyone in
the world could think that the earth was flat, it would make absolutely no
difference to the shape of our planet - but it would make a great deal of
difference with respect to their effectiveness in navigating from one place
to another!

If a mathematician proposed that one plus one was equal to two, would you
dismiss that as just a personal philosophy of mathematics?  I'm not in any
way suggesting that my view of reality is the right one, or the only
possible one - but I am absolutely adamant that if we regard subjective
impressions as convertible to objective truth just by sheer weight of
numbers then the future of science is doomed.

That's a major reason why I don't participate in discussing the pros and
cons of various models of the electron, as you say you'd wish me to - it's
not actually possible for me to separate 'my philosophy', as you call it,
from my perception of what constitutes a better or less good model.  You've
proposed (below) that I "point out any defects or limitations in different
models" - surely that's what I've tried to do, totally consistently, in a
logical way that hopefully doesn't give offence?  But it seems that's what
you object to, since you regard my approach as simply my [personal]
philosophy of science and therefore (presumably) not acceptable as a valid
contribution to this discussion.

I'll continue to participate in this debate, in the only way that makes
sense to me (and hopefully makes some sense to some others).  If that
doesn't work for you, fine, give it a miss - but I'm afraid I can't set
aside what I see as facts just to join in a conversation on any model that,
for what seem to me to be very good reasons, I can't believe in.

Best regards,

Grahame

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

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

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

Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2016 3:01 PM

Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

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

<mythintro.pdf>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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/20160705/9fbdd682/attachment.htm>