[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

[John Williamson]

Ok Richard, I will try,

Gentlemen, I think you are entirely missing the point about (quantum) spin. It is not primarily about a value. It is primarily about the (experimental) fact that it comes in two varieties “up” or “down”. These two states follow an exclusion principle.

In other words the spin of an elementary electron or proton is in no way like a little spinning top. Forget about it. Not even close. In no way an analogy.

It is BOTH far far smaller (pretty much zero) and far far bigger than that, of which more later.
Hopefully, this does not come as a complete surprise. You all already know this to be true.
Now the important experimental stuff for spin comes from (at least) four different fields. I cannot teach you all (or any!) these in an email. In fact, aspects of these I could not teach you at all as I do not master all of them and some of you know more about one or two of them than do I. Ignorance knows (little or) no bounds! However I am (supposed to be) expert in a couple of the relevant fields so - with that disclaimer here goes …

Firstly, the strongest evidence (as far as I know – this is not my field) for the value and the coupling of the photon spin and electron spin comes from atomic and molecular physics and the “allowed” transitions emitting and absorbing photons.  The limiting “spin” of the electron and photon is strongly related, in that (if one accepts angular momentum conservation) one is half (or double) the other. The analogy is a spin up” system (+1/2) emits a spin 1 photon (+1) flipping to spin down (-1/2). The photon is subsequently absorbed by a spin “down” which flips to a spin “up”. This is just a sketch, and of course lots of transitions which are not “allowed” do happen – but they have probabilities which are much lower. Anyway, in this context it  could look as though “spin” was a purely electromagnetic phenomenon. This would be the world-view one came away with if this was all one knew.

The big surprise is, if one steps out of this field and looks at others, that spin is not just characteristic of the electromagnetic “strength”. It is strong. It is stronger than strong!
Before discussing the evidence for that note that the experimental properties of spin have been the starting point for many beautiful theories. Alex, for example, has used this. In this he has been following Kerr, Newman Carter and others – all beautiful and short! papers. He argued in 1973 that if the spin density is what it is there must be some strong force at play. He and others have ascribed this to gravitation, within the framework of GR. Though others, Carter for example, attribute this to a breakdown of the theory of gravitation. Whatever the “force” confining the spin is it certainly large. This is not to mention the (infinitely) large forces one needs to contain a point charge. This is a point where Alex and I disagree (though it is only in a name) – for me gravitation is a weak thing – I would just prefer to call the strong stuff something else to avoid confusion.  Effectively, Martin and also started from this in our 1997 paper, noting that if the initial photon was spinning at one unit, the resultant double-loop electron spun with half a unit.

Anyway, this is the task at hand, gentlemen, one needs (eventually) to explain all of this simultaneously, not just bits of it.

Another beautiful, and more recent theory in another field also takes spin as a starting point. This is Carver Mead’s “Collective electrodynamics”. Also very beautiful and I recommend you all read it. He takes spin as a central paradigm in solid state physics and derives much of value and beauty from this.

However I diverge a bit. Lets get back to what is known from experiment, and in particular with what happens at high energy.

This is completely astonishing.

Firstly one must realize that there is no difference in the energy of an elementary particle for spin “up” or “down”. I do not mean “no difference” figuratively here. The energy difference is zero. One only observes a difference at all in the presence of an external magnetic field – and this is a tiny tiny fraction of the mass-energy of the particles concerned. Now one can prepare a set of particles in a given spin state rather easily electromagnetically – and with very low energy input (like zero!). If one does this, and subsequently accelerates the spin up or spin down particles while maintaining that spin and then bash them into one another, things at least as amazing as what happened in Rutherfords experiment happens. One expects very little at the scale of the strong interaction. One has only inputted a little eentsy bit of energy into the spin component far away and long ago. All gone now. For this reason one does not really measure the (tiny) spin of an elementary particle as a number in HEP – one observes its effects – and these are astonishingly large.

What actually happens in collisions is MONSTROUS.

This was first done at the zero gradient synchrotron at Argonne (the clue of maintaining the spin is in the name). Look at Scientific American May 1979. Nice pictures. Shocking. Disproves the quark model! Oh dear.

Take the probability of scattering of unpolarised protons on protons as a base. Call it 1. Remember this scattering is dominated by the strong interaction at high energies. At 4-momentum transfers of the order of the proton mass the spin parallel probabilty is about 2 and for spin antiparallel about a half.  It is as if one had wrapped ones tank in blue cling film – and discovered that shells then passed right through it half the time, whereas if one used red cling film the shells tended to blow it up, even if they missed it a bit. Further, if one tries to decompose the results in terms of the internal parton (quark) spin it does not work at all. The quark model breaks down. It was largely the complete refusal of the HEP community to accept this experimental fact and chase it down that led me to leave it in disgust in the mid eighties.

Experimentally, more astonishing still one finds a beautiful resonance, a little below the proton mass-energy, where the protons become even more transparent. Utterly astonishing (and still completely unexplained) behavior. Look at it! Quantum spin is crucial. The “exclusion principle” is not infinitely potent, but remains potent up to energies exceeding the total mass-energy of the elementary particles themselves. Further, there is very clear structure (in energy) in its potency. Explain that! We do in terms of the double-loop model – see below.

Subsequent experiments using polarised targets and polarized beams all found such kinds of behavior. Conclusion: whatever spin is it is involved with generating interactions as strong or stronger than the so-called strong interaction. Conventionally, one ascribes these to “exchange” forces though the detail of what is supposedly exchanged in the framework (of QCD, for example) throws up serious contradictions in the detail. Normally, this would have meant that one threw away ones theory and came up with something better, but the scientific method seems to have gone out of fashion in these circles and this has yet to happen (to my knowledge).

Coming back to our discussion. Even if one could line up the whole electron or proton as a pure spinning top, oriented with spin up (in the classical sense) one would not observe anything like this. The energy would be limited to the energy in the spin. One sees much more. These particles do not behave AT ALL like little spinning tops. NO way. Not a bit. Forget about it!

In the context of solid state physics one also sees astonishing effects associated with spin. Mad magnets. Spin blockade in quantum dots. Ridiculously high Tc superconductors. Giant magneto-resistance. Lots more “exchange” stuff way beyond standard QM or EM.

Conclusion: a proper understanding of the underlying nature of quantum spin will prove crucial in developing a proper theory of how it all works.

Martin and I have explained these effects with our models in terms of the interference of the internal fields of the elementary particles – doubling the mass-energy if the interference is precisely in phase (leading to an exclusion) and giving zero energy if in antiphase. We talked about this in our early work leading to the 1997 paper. I talked about this at CYBCOM in 2008 and presented a paper arguing this in 2012 (proceedings of MENDEL 2012). This is how one makes fermions from bosons – tie them up into a double loop. Martin has been looking at this in more detail in the context of much weaker overlaps in the solid state.

So – if one looks one sees effects larger even than the E = hbar nu one would ascribe to the full mass energy of the elementary particles. This is something I should have mentioned before. In the formula above hbar takes the role of an elementary, quantized angular momentum. That is the angular momentum (spin energy) accounts for ALL the energy of the photon. In this sense, for a circularly polarized photon, all of its energy is rotational. This does not mean that the photon is rotating like a little massive ball on a stick. Not at all. No ball. No stick.  It is the EM field that carries the rotation. The rotation appears at its simplest, as the differential of the (perpendicular) differential of a (perpendicular) vector.  More properly, one may wish to see it (as measured in experiment) as the differential of one vector times the differential of the differential of another (at least another phase (loop)). I said before the rotation “axis” must be viewed as at least complex, and in my view more complex than complex (complex is only 2D and one needs at least 4 dimensions to describe it dynamically)  to give any hope of explaining the body of experimental facts. Three complex vectors would do it (for example). Cheers Alex – but I think one could make it simpler that that!

Gentlemen, coming back to the discussion about the spin of the moving electron -if we take angular momentum to be conserved then the spin of an electron passing you fast is exactly the same as one passing you slow as JD said as – think about it – you have not spun it up or down by accelerating yourself. One may wish to try to explain this in terms of the spin of tops, relativistic or otherwise (also conserved) but one is then not getting into a discussion about the really interesting stuff about spin at all.

Regards, John.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:23 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities


Can I chip in to say that IMHO Compton scattering takes  a “slice” off the photon and gives it to the electron in an asymmetrical fashion. As a result, the electron moves. It moves because it’s a circulating photon that’s no longer a symmetrical circulating photon. It’s hard to visualize this, but simplify the electron to a photon going round in a circular path. When Compton scattering occurs, energy is added so the wavelength reduces, but asymmetrically. It’s like drawing say 355 degrees of a circle, then without lifting your pen, drawing another 355 degrees of a circle, and so on:

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D1DC72.3EBF4540]

As for the exact details of what happens with a fast-moving electron, I’m not sure. I am reminded of extending a slinky, but I know that an electron doesn’t change just because I move past it fast. And I wish that all physicists only had that to disagree upon.

Regards
JohnD

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 12 July 2016 16:25
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

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<mailto: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 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">
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-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/20160713/a25fae01/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 28031 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160713/a25fae01/attachment.jpg>