[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Dr Grahame Blackwell grahame at starweave.com
Wed Jul 13 11:31:49 PDT 2016


Hi Chip, Richard, John D,

[Note: in the past 24 hrs there have been emails from John W, Chip, John D and Richard; none of those later emails have been addressed in my text below, which refers to your previous emails, however on a quick look through I didn't see anything that would change my comments below.]

John D,
I reckon all of us who subscribe to the cyclic-photon model of the electron have embraced the slinky-spring-type structure for some years - some of us for more than a decade.  The issue here isn't the asymmetry, or whether a Compton-scattered photon passes something to the electron, it's about the fact that when the formative photon of such an electron shifts from a circular to a helical pattern (the electron moves) then a component of that formative photon's angular momentum (its spin) acts in the direction of motion of the electron, so presumably increasing the spin of the electron (unless some other factor causes its spin to decrease by an exact corresponding amount).  Whether or not one believes in the frame symmetry of SR (i.e. that an electron on the move is identical to me on the move past an electron), this is certainly true for an electron from the perspective of one for whom that electron is moving (which is likewise a valid state in SR).  [I note that John W has said quite a bit on this in his latest email, I hope to comment on that when I've read it & thought about it thoroughly.]

Richard,
I know of no experimental evidence that z-component of ang mom for a moving electron is other than + or - hbar/2 (i.e. spin +/- 1/2).  However, in the absence of evidence for or against the ang mom z-component being +/- hbar/2, I take the view that it need not necessarily be, and so a theory that allows for it being otherwise is quite feasible unless and until it's shown that it definitely IS always that value.  It's a bit like saying that if a baseball is hit with a baseball bat then one can assume that it may have differing values for its angular momentum unless/until it's shown that it must always be the same - rather than assuming that it must always be the same unless/until someone proves definitively that it can have differing values.  Given that the spin will only be significantly different (if ever) at highly relativistic speeds of electron motion, it seems to me that requiring a theory to conform to spin +/- 1/2 at all speeds until proved otherwise (when that requirement is apparently totally unfounded on experimental evidence) is a rather more demanding constraint than those applied to almost any other emergent theory in physics.  [Ditto my last comment on JW's latest emails.]

Chip,
I can see your reasoning regarding time dilation acting in relation to interaction of particles with their environment but not internally to the particles themselves.  That isn't borne out by the empirical evidence, though; there are at least two quite different practical demonstrations of time dilation acting within elementary particles themselves.

First, to state the obvious, time dilation doesn't just happen; in common with every other effect in the universe (including those other effects attributed to SR), there has to be a causal mechanism that gives rise to that effect.  With regard to time dilation in multi-particle systems (including composite objects) mainstream science recognises such a cause for time dilation (as observed in a moving object from the static lab frame; I know of no empirical evidence that, as supposed, this effect is fully reciprocal - that would require measurements from WITHIN a frame moving at relativistic speeds, not just OF a 'clock' moving at such speed).  It's accepted that within an object moving at speed, the inter-particle (photon) signalling paths would be extended, leading to slowing of processes involving such signalling (such as in a clock of any type or any other object, including a living organism).  This is 'relativistic' time dilation in a multi-particle object.

That fits with your theory, of course.  But then we need to look at the decay rate of muons, which are elementary particles with no substructure.  That decay rate is known to slow down for muons at speed, exactly in accordance with the SR formula for speed-related time dilation.  Decay of such an elementary particle must surely be a process dependent on the internals of that particle itself (as a point of detail it's worth noting that the environment in which muons exhibit this behaviour is not itself moving at speed); this suggests that something within the muon is itself operating at a reduced rate.

The second effect of note in this context is zitterbewegung of electrons moving at speed.  The experiment of Gouanere et al shows very clearly the looping rate of electrons slowing with speed, again exactly in accordance with the SR time dilation factor.  There seems no doubt that Gouanere et al's results are a direct consequence of the loop time (so also double-loop time) for the formative photon in an electron increasing by factor gamma with speed of electrons.  This is nothing to do with interaction with the environment (though of course it has an impact on that interaction), this is photon cycles taking longer internally to the electron - and as a consequence resonating with a crystal lattice exactly as one would expect in such slowed-down-looping circumstances.  If one regards the looping (or double-looping) of the formative photon as the 'de Broglie clock', then that 'clock' is indeed slowed by a factor 1/gamma, totally internally to the electron.

I'll look at those other more recent emails shortly; I have to say that on scanning them quickly I found various of the points that I saw quite exciting - as you say Richard, we seem to be getting somewhere; Chip, I also found your reference to Matlab modelling, and your comments on that, most interesting and with real potential.  I'll hopefully respond to those various emails shortly.

Best regards to all,
Grahame







----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Duffield 
  To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:23 PM
  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:

   

   

   

  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

   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160713/b63efc14/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 28031 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160713/b63efc14/attachment.jpeg>


More information about the General mailing list