[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Fri Jul 8 12:06:54 PDT 2016
Grahame,
regarding the radius of the electron, I think that it is well defined.
Schrödinger evaluated "the size" of the electron in his famous paper of
1930 by QM means, and his result was "about 4 * 10^-13 m". From my model
there follows a more precise value which is R = 3.86 * 10^-13 m.
What about the spin? If the mass of a particle is m = h(bar)/(R*c)
(this follows from my model) then you can reorder it: m*R*c = h(bar).
This is the classical definition of the angular momentum. The result is
constant for a lepton and for a quark independent of the individual
particle, but it has a factor of 1/2 missing. The cause is that the mass
follows here from a special mechanism which is not reflected by the
classical understanding of a mass which is distributed within the particle.
If interested please look at my site "Origin of Mass". (
www.ag-physics.org )
Best regards
Albrecht
Am 08.07.2016 um 11:45 schrieb John Williamson:
>
> Yep it is,indeed not so simple.
>
> Grahame, you say ...
>
> Angular momentum is given by linear tangential momentum multiplied by
> radius - so angular momentum of the electron is mcR. Since mc is
> constant, R must also be constant if angular momentum is invariant
> (which I believe we agree it is)
>
> Hmm, I kind of do and do not agree. This kind of thing is (perhaps)
> part of the story, but anyway only a part. Such a thing is, indeed A
> component of angular momentum, but it is wholly inadequate to describe
> quantum spin. It is the only component for simple models where a
> something goes round and round in circles in ordinary space, even so
> it immediately begs the question "what is R?" and then the further
> question "what is m?" let alone the deeper questions - why that R and
> why that m? and what is it orbiting about and what is orbiting?
>
> Going to "what is R?. The R needs to be, in my view, at least
> “complex”. I recently read your 1973 article Alex. Very beautiful.
> 1973! Had we been aware of it at the time I’m sure Martin and I would
> have referenced it as a possible confinement scenario. There you
> recognize, correctly, the huge angular momentum density and use that
> as an input. I think the subsequent double covering problemsand the
> sign change similar to those encountered by other folk in trying to
> model stuff using the half-integer Legendre polynomials, are best
> treated by going more complex than complex, and using a proper
> non-commutative algebra. Tricky, I know, but nature, (especially 3D
> rotations) IS non-commutative.
>
>
> Coming back to angular momentum and the underlying nature of spin.
> This IS hard. No simple way round it. Properly, the momentum is itself
> contains a division of space by time (the velocity). It is properly a
> bi-vector. Further, the orbital angular momentum (what Grahame is
> talking about), contains a multiplication of this by a perpendicular
> vector (R ). That is, properly, a tri-vector (the dual of a
> vector).Remember, torque and energy have the same SI units (force
> times distance), but are quite different (energy is a scalar, torque
> is a bi-vector). Same kind of thing needed here in your thinking and
> visualisation (but worse). You can think of the bi-vector ness (of the
> trivector) either in your momentum or in your “radius” –either way
> hypercomplex. Also – to go further you need to go to differential
> forms – not just see this as just some mass m orbiting on some
> (massless) stick of fixed length R! Sorry Grahame, but this is what
> your model of angular momentum looks like to me. Orbiting around what?
> What is orbiting and what is it orbiting around?
>
>
> This all sounds pretty horrible, but it is not as bad as you think.
> The Maxwell equations already contain much of this complexity, and
> describe light well. One of the Maxwell equations IS the (partial at
> least) tri-vector equation for the electromagnetic fluid. Analysing
> this properly, with the right extensions, does give an intrinsic
> angular momentum density which can be integrated. I’m not very good at
> this kind of thing, but that is just the kind of thing I’m trying to do.
>
>
> My new photon wavefunction does, at least do this. As the energy
> varies the curvature varies inversely to maintain the angular momentum
> at hbar to arbitrary energies. Sticking this into our electron model
> then gives a half-integral spin at arbitrary energies (since it is a
> double-loop and transforms, further, as a looping photon).
>
>
> Anyway gotta go .. still dealing with fallout from the exams …
>
>
> Regards, John.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 08, 2016 6:13 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective
> realities
>
> Hello Grahame,
>
> Unfortunately the situation is not so simple. Neither of our
> published electron models includes a specific photon model with its
> own spin, where this photon model moves along the helical trajectory
> described in our models. If that photon moving along the helical
> trajectory has a spin that is is independent of the energy of the
> photon (which is the nature of photons) then as the photon's
> trajectory in the your double-loop constant helical radius electron
> model gets more and more straight with increasing electron speed, then
> the spin of this circulating photon adds more and more to the spin 1/2
> of your electron model produced by its circling transverse component
> of momentum mc at constant radius R. The result is that a circulating
> spin 1 photon along your constant radius R helical trajectory would
> give your electron model a total spin of one and a half units of spin
> hbar at highly relativistic velocities. A circulating spin 1/2 photon
> traveling along your constant radius R trajectory would give your
> electron model a total spin of 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 unit of hbar of spin at
> highly relativistic velocities. It is only if the radius R of the
> photon’s helical trajectory decreases with increasing velocity to
> become insignificant (compared to R in a resting electron) at
> relativistic velocities that the spin of the electron model at
> relativistic velocities will equal only the spin of the photon
> composing the electron model. Ideally the helically circulating photon
> model of the electron will have longitudinal spin component 1/2 hbar
> at all velocities of the electron model from very slow velocities to
> very highly relativistic velocities.
>
> I have an unpublished internally superluminal (v=c sqrt(2) )
> helically circulating spin-1/2 photon model whose spin remains 1/2 at
> all energies, which may be suitable for modeling the electron. I
> described this photon model in this email list in the past. The radius
> of my published spin-1/2 charged-photon electron model’s photon
> trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 with increasing electron velocity,
> so this does not produce the complication described above when the
> helical radius of the photon’s trajectory is a constant R at all
> electron velocities.
>
> Richard
>
>> On Jul 7, 2016, at 1:00 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell
>> <grahame at starweave.com <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Richard,
>> That's precisely what I've been trying to say, without in any way
>> resting on any generally-accepted results that might be regarded as
>> consequences of SR (and so open to question).
>> If we agree that the transverse momentum component of the electron is
>> a direct consequence of the rotational component of its formative
>> photon (as I hope we do!) then that rotational component is acting at
>> radius R of the electron at that time from its centre. Angular
>> momentum is given by linear tangential momentum multiplied by radius
>> - so angular momentum of the electron is mcR. Since mc is constant,
>> R must also be constant if angular momentum is invariant (which I
>> believe we agree it is).
>> Just one further point: Richard, you refer to m as the electron's
>> invariant mass. If we regard mass as that quality of an object that
>> resists acceleration (and so is proportional to the instantaneous
>> force required to induce an instantaneous acceleration), then my
>> research indicates that the mass is/not/invariant - though it will
>> appear so from measurements taken within the electron's moving
>> frame. My analysis shows that objective mass varies with speed and
>> the relationship E = mc^2 is applicable only for an objectively
>> static object/particle. The m referred to above, as I see it, is the
>> objective rest-mass of the electron (i.e. its mass when objectively
>> static), which corresponds to the energy required to maintain the
>> formative structure of the electron (as opposed to that required to
>> maintain its linear motion). This is of course constant.
>> 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:*Thursday, July 07, 2016 6:42 AM
>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective
>>> realities
>>>
>>> Chip and Grahame,
>>> Lets be specific to the electron to avoid unnecessary vagueness.
>>> The moving electron (composed of a circulating photon) has a
>>> constant transverse internal momentum component mc and a
>>> longitudinal external momentum component p=gamma mv. These two
>>> momenta add vectorially (by the Pythagorean theorem) to give P^2 =
>>> p^2 + (mc)^2 where P=E/c is the momentum P=gamma mc of the
>>> helically circulating photon of energy E = gamma mc^2 that is the
>>> total energy of the linearly moving electron, modeled by the
>>> helically moving photon. This relationship is equivalent to the
>>> relativistic energy-momentum equation for a moving electron: E^2 =
>>> (pc)^2 + m^2 c^4 which, substituting E=Pc, gives (Pc)^2 = (pc)^2 +
>>> (mc^2) c^2 .. Dividing by c^2 gives P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2 as given
>>> above. So as the electron speeds up, the transverse momentum
>>> component mc of the electron’s total (internal plus external)
>>> momentum P remains constant even for a highly relativistic electron.
>>> The electron’s constant transverse internal momentum component mc
>>> corresponds to (and leads to a derivation of) the electron’s
>>> invariant mass m.
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>> On Jul 6, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell
>>>> <grahame at starweave.com <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes Chip,
>>>> Certainly the momentum of the confined wave increases - but that
>>>> increased momentum should not ALL be reckoned as ANGULAR momentum
>>>> of the electron.
>>>> We know that a component of the momentum of that photon is linear -
>>>> it's the linear momentum of the electron in motion. There is
>>>> another component of that photon that's orthogonal to that, i.e. in
>>>> the direction of the cyclic motion of the photon. As the linear
>>>> velocity of the electron increases, the linear component of the
>>>> photon momentum increases - however the orthogonal, cyclic,
>>>> component of that photon momentum does NOT increase, since the
>>>> 'pitch angle' of the helical motion of that photon increases with
>>>> linear electron velocity, and so also with photon frequency, so as
>>>> to precisely cancel out the effect of that increased frequency in
>>>> the resolved-component cyclic direction.
>>>> The angular momentum of the electron, dictated by the angular
>>>> momentum contribution of the photon, does NOT depend on the FULL
>>>> momentum of the photon - it ONLY depends on that component of the
>>>> photon that acts cyclically, i.e. the component that's orthogonal
>>>> to the linear motion of the photon. That component remains
>>>> constant (as long as the radius of the photon cycle remains constant).
>>>> For example, if an electron is travelling with linear speed 0.6c
>>>> then its formative photon is travelling in a helical path which, if
>>>> we were to flatten it out (as in relativistic energy-momentum
>>>> relation) we'd find that formative photon having a linear motion
>>>> component of 0.6c and cyclic speed component of 0.8c. This means
>>>> that the ANGULAR momentum imparted by the photon will only be 0.8
>>>> of that which it would give if it were travelling fully cyclically
>>>> at speed c (as for a static particle). Since the frequency of the
>>>> photon will be increased by a gamma factor of 1/0.8 for such
>>>> motion, the decreased (0.8) contribution of momentum for increased
>>>> (1/0.8) frequency will be exactly what it was for the static particle.
>>>> I hope that helps make things clearer.
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Grahame
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>> Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier 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">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160708/649f8d3b/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list