[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Tue Jul 12 08:25:22 PDT 2016
Hi Again Grahame
One issue I have been contemplating is the “spin mode” of the energy in the
photon and the electron.
You said
”[A ‘quick fix’ would of course be to propose a linearly polarized
photon with zero spin – i.e. 50/50 superposition of left and right
circularly polarized elements. This, though, is rather a cop-out as it
removes a possible explanation for other electron features, notably charge;
it also doesn’t feel right.]”
But perhaps that is not a “quick fix” at all. It may well be that
characterizing the electron as a confined photon is actually a quick fix and
that the energy in the electron is configured in a completely different
“spin mode” than that of the photon. We already know that the electron spin
is, at the very least, different than the photon spin, so we might be trying
to force fit the photon solution where it does not apply at all (except that
the energy can be configured in two completely different stable modes).
Thoughts?
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:24 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities
Hi Chip, Richard, John W,
I think we all realised, from Chip’s email if not before, that there’s an
issue to be addressed with regard to a photon’s angular momentum in the
overall behaviour of a photon-formed electron.
It seems to me that, whatever photon-based electron model any one of us
chooses to put forward, when that electron is in motion then there will be a
component of that formative photon’s angular momentum in the direction of
motion of the electron (i.e. about any axis in that direction). More than
this, my preliminary investigations suggest that it would take a very
creative model indeed to ensure that the rise in that component with
increase in electron speed would be exactly balanced by a drop-off in the
component from the photon’s linear momentum to give the electron a constant
angular momentum.
[A ‘quick fix’ would of course be to propose a linearly polarized photon
with zero spin – i.e. 50/50 superposition of left and right circularly
polarized elements. This, though, is rather a cop-out as it removes a
possible explanation for other electron features, notably charge; it also
doesn’t feel right.]
I believe we’re all agreed that:
(a) There’s more than enough evidence to confirm that the concept of an
electron (and likely also other elementary particles) being formed from a
closed-loop photon is totally valid;
(b) Formation of an electron involves a double-loop per wavelength of the
photon, at least for the static electron. All else aside this is clearly
indicated by zitterbewegung.
I’m guessing we all also agree on the validity of the so-called Relativistic
Energy-Momentum Relation (whether or not we subscribe to the idea of
objective frame symmetry). There are quite a few points that can be drawn
from that, as I see it.
Most importantly, the REMR represents the full momentum of a moving electron
(i.e. momentum of its formative photon) in terms of linear and cyclic
components. Expressed diagrammatically, these three components form a
right-angled triangle that defines the relative directions of the
instantaneous velocity components (linear, cyclic, overall) of that photon
(since these must necessarily follow momentum component directions).
It’s pretty clear, first of all, that if the linear velocity component is v
(as it is) and the overall velocity is anything other than c (in directions
as given by REMR) then the cyclic velocity component will not be orthogonal
to the linear component (as it must be). From this I believe that we can
confirm that the velocity (at least the mean velocity) of an
electron-forming photon must be c; I think this rules out certain proposals.
Secondly, that velocity triangle gives cyclic velocity component as c/gamma.
Those who subscribe to SR’s objective frame symmetry would presumably expect
the double-loop to complete in a time gamma tau, where tau is the time for
that double-loop for a static electron (since from the static perspective
that double-loop in the moving electron would have to correspond with the
time-dilated interval in the moving frame). I also see the double-loop
completing in that time, since I regard energy flow as the underlying
mechanism driving the passage of time; a slower rate of time-experience
(time dilation) is the consequence, rather than the cause, of that reduced
looping rate.
Whichever is the case, a looping rate reduced by a factor gamma and achieved
by a flow speed component also reduced by a factor gamma indicates a
constant path-length, i.e. a constant radius for the cyclic path of the
formative photon. This appears to be an inescapable conclusion from
consideration of the REMR and time dilation.
[For completeness I should add that SR frame symmetry requires that each
double-loop is also seen as exactly one full single wavelength from within
the moving frame; for me this raises an irreconcilable contradiction in SR.]
Back to that photon spin
==================
Clearly either electron spin increases with speed of the electron’s linear
motion – or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t then this implies some aspect of
quantum mechanics that needs further consideration. Rather more
significantly for us, I believe it also rules out the whole concept of
electrons being formed from looping photons.
That last seemingly outrageous statement follows from the tendency towards
flat-lining of the formative photon as an electron tends towards speed c.
Unless we consider that photon to be other than circularly polarized – which
I believe raises serious difficulties with other aspects of the model – then
this means that the electron’s angular momentum in its direction of motion
tends to at least hbar – which is clearly inconsistent with constancy of
electron angular momentum with increasing speed.
Rather less problematic (as I see it) is the notion that the electron’s
angular momentum in its direction of motion increases with its speed. I
don’t know of any experimental evidence showing conclusively that this is
not the case, if others do then of course that would be of interest.
Obviously if angular momentum does increase then that must be by virtue of
its being transferred from elsewhere. Since increase in velocity must be
caused by an input of energy – a real or virtual photon – then the most
obvious course is to consider a Compton scattering event that increases the
velocity of the electron.
It’s known that in general Compton scattering leads to a change in
polarisation state of the scattered photon. From what little I’ve seen,
such changes have been calculated from theory and confirmed in principle by
experiment; that theory doesn’t generally include the notion of an
electron’s angular momentum varying with speed, as far as I know. That
(likely) omission would make negligible difference in all but the most
extreme case: increase of electron speed from sub-relativistic to highly
relativistic in a single step – since the change in scattered-photon spin
would correspond to the change in v/c for the electron.
To summarise: The concept of an electron formed from a circularly-polarised
photon looping at constant radius for all speeds of the electron appears to
be consistent with all experimental evidence, other than maybe definitive
evidence on electron radius at speed* (unless electrons moving at high speed
have been shown, and not just inferred, to have spin ½); this observation is
based on the assumption that no evidence exists of photon polarisation state
changes in high-energy Compton scattering events with sufficient powers of
discrimination (i.e. accuracy) to definitively show that no angular momentum
has been passed from the photon to the electron, other than that accounted
for by a change in direction of motion of the electron.
* I have yet to look at this.
Of course this is just my view, based on my understanding of available
scientific data. I’d be interested to hear other views on these
observations
[Richard, I hope it’s clear from the above why I have reservations over your
proposed v=sqrt(2)c spin-1/2 photon model of the electron. In particular I
can’t see how that model can be reconciled with the Relativistic
Energy-Momentum Relation in terms of correspondence of directions for
components of momentum and velocity.]
Regards to all,
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: Friday, July 08, 2016 6:13 AM
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 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>
_____
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
<mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20160712/95349098/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list