[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

[Dr Grahame Blackwell]

Hi Richard,

 

It seems to me you’re getting a bit carried away here!  It also seems to me that you need to check your facts more carefully (aka ‘academic rigour’) before making unwarranted assertions about a colleague’s activities in a general forum like this; you may land yourself in hot water otherwise!

 

More on that in a moment; first your other points deserve due consideration.

 

I’d agree that your first paragraph does truly reflect my perspective on the various aspects that you mention, with the riders that: (b) the invariant measured speed, c, from every inertial frame is due to the true relative speed being moderated by speed-related influences on the observer or instrument in a moving frame; (e) the observed frequency of looping is reduced in a moving frame due to the longer path length (full circle + linear displacement, acting orthogonally to each other); neither (i) linear component of path length nor (ii) reduced looping frequency are apparent to an observer moving with the particle, (i) due to observer’s own motion, (ii) due to time dilation in observer/instrument (which is almost certainly itself due to a corresponding effect in the structure of the observer/instrument).

 

Your point about the bent stick raises an interesting question.  That question, it seems, is: can we trust our own senses?  If not then we may as well make (what appears to be) a bonfire of (what seem to be) our scientific papers and spend (what we experience as) our time soaking up (what we perceive as) the sun’s rays on (what gives the impression of) a beach somewhere (whilst acknowledging that the concept of ‘somewhere’ may itself be an illusion).

 

Of course we do trust our senses, and they don’t generally let us down – as long as we use them alongside that other sense: commonsense. I don’t, for example, spend time each morning standing at my bathroom wash basin convinced that I’m facing my chiral twin embedded in the wall behind that sheet of glass.

 

That’s because we use our commonsense to help us make sense of the information we receive from all our other senses; and this is where science really comes into its own.  I know why I’m seeing that image, in terms of laws and principles that have been figured out in relation to the physical level of our reality: science helps us (or should) to understand why things happen the way they do.

 

I say “physical level of reality” because reality exists for us on various levels – quite possibly an infinite number, as we dig deeper.  For example, if you study a simple rock pool on the beach (as I encouraged young children to do in my schoolteaching days 40 years ago), you can see: the simple physical reality of the water, the sand, the pebbles; or the geological reality of the rock formations and crystal inclusions of the enclosing rock itself; or the biological reality of the marine life in the rock pool – anemones, shrimps, small fish, various seaweeds.  I tasked the children with writing a report on what they found in their own chosen rock pool, and it was always a real education to me to see the totally different accounts from, say, three children who’d all been studying the same rock pool (but not).

 

This is highly relevant to ‘the stick question’.  In analysing any situation we need to decide – often unconsciously – at which level we are operating in that situation.  With regard to the stick, we need to be operating at a level where ‘straight’ and ‘bent’ have meanings that we all understand and agree upon: those two concepts then have objective meaning at the level of our discussion – we may subjectively see a stick as bent when it is in fact objectively straight, but our perception doesn’t alter the objective straightness of that stick.  If we spot an anomaly in our observations then we would apply simple scientific techniques to identify how that anomaly has arisen; that information then becomes part of our ‘commonsense database’.

 

A major shortcoming with regard to SR, it seems to me (and apparently others in this group) is that 100 years ago various anomalous features were identified – but never conclusively explained.  In contrast to the usual investigative approach that we associate with good science, those features were all lumped together as the result of some mysterious property of reality – but no attempt was made to track down the reason for that mysterious property.  In this respect I totally understand Chandra’s statement that “SR is not Physics” (since no scientific method appears to have been applied to identify its root causes, present company excepted).



It’s true that identification of an objective reality at the physical level will, in all likelihood, show it to be a subjective experience at a deeper level.  It appears, for example, that our concept of ‘locality’ may well be an evolutionary adaptation to enable us to survive and thrive in an intrinsically alocal universe.  This doesn’t invalidate the concept of an ‘objective truth’ at the physical level: we simply need to be sure in our own minds about which level we’re working at.  Description of the Mona Lisa as an assemblage of pigments doesn’t invalidate the objective truth that, at a different level, it’s a graphical representation of a human face.

 

This brings us on to your “It strikes me as unbelievable …”.  I’m afraid I can’t be responsible for the shortcomings of your belief system, which apparently has no difficulty in believing a ‘scientific’ principle for which it appears no conclusive proof, and certainly no explanation, exists.  Whilst I agree that all measurement is necessarily subjective, it’s incumbent on every scientist to consider the totality of all available such measurements in the light of their own reason and come to some logical conclusion.  That is how science is done.  With regard to the CMB, the salient feature of that particular phenomenon is that, irrespective of measurement of its fine detail, it does define a unique reference frame in apparent contradiction of SR (as pointed out on the Smoot website) – objectively.  That unique reference frame exists independently of any observer.

 

With regard to your question as to whether I believe my own statement about electrons being formed from photons: yes, I do believe that it’s clear that the waveform in an electron is simply the photon wave [of the formative photon] – which is what I said.  By association this must mean “clear to me”, since I’m the author of that statement, I wouldn’t presume to assume that it’s clear to everybody in the world.  As for “proved”, I didn’t actually say that: the question of ‘proof’ is not clear-cut; one man’s proof is another man’s maybe.  The fact that electron-positron pairs are formed purely from photons (as identified by Landau & Lifshits in 1934 and demonstrated experimentally at SLAC in 1997) – and that colliding particle-antiparticle pairs ‘annihilate’ one another to generate a pair of photons of corresponding energy content would, I believe, constitute a fair degree of proof for many people.

 

It’s most assuredly not the case that I’ve refused to offer critical comment on others’ electron models.  I’ve given a fair degree of time to discussing why I believe the radius of an electron (i.e. of its formative photon loop) is invariant under motion, and to indicating why I feel that a model founded on principles of SR is starting from the wrong place.  I don’t expect everyone to agree with me – but neither do I see any point in offering further criticism of a model that I believe is ill-founded (any more than I would with regard to critiquing an engineering project, e.g. a car engine: once I’d observed that in my view the basic design was fundamentally flawed, it would be neither helpful nor polite to seek to find fault with the details of that design).  If, despite my observations, the author chose to circulate their model anyway and others chose to read it, that’s their right and in no way my responsibility.  I’m not sure how you can possibly make it such.

 

And so we come to your assertion of the profit motive on my part.  I’m not sure where that came from (!), I can only assume that you’re referring to my ‘Science of Oneness’ course that ran for a short while three years ago and hasn’t run again since (because I’ve been concerned with pursuing my research and writing my book).  It was most assuredly not about “[my] model of physical reality derived from spun-light models of particles that [I] offer … to teach .. to others for a fee”.  Perish the thought!!  This course was about the intrinsic interconnectedness of things, a subject that I happen to believe in quite strongly.  (The clue is in the title!)

 

The course included such diverse topics as: The Anthropic Principle; quantum tunnelling in enzymes; nucleosynthesis in stars; co-operative relationships between certain plants and insects (to defend against predators); Lovelock’s Daisyworld; consciousness – all except the last being drawn from peer-reviewed science.  I did, not surprisingly, include a reference to my own work on photon-formed particles (also peer-reviewed journal-published), with the rider that this was my personal take on this subject.  I hope you can see how silly your assertion looks in the light of this actual (as opposed to assumed) course content.

 

I feel as if I should be annoyed, but actually I find it rather funny.  I would, though, caution you against letting your imagination run away with you in this way, it could get you into trouble.  (That’s a bit of that constructive criticism you keep asking for!)

 

Best regards,

Grahame

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Gauthier 
  To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 4:59 AM
  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> 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
      To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
      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 richgauthier at gmail.com
    <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
    Click here to unsubscribe
    </a>





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
  <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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/20160706/200ddfb1/attachment.htm>