[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

[Chip Akins]

Hi Grahame

 

Thank you for the thoughtful response. This is a stimulating conversation.

 

As for the issue you addressed when you said.

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.

 

This is not necessarily the way it works.  We have all suggested that there
must be a force to confine the "photon" to make it become a fermion.  When
we calculate this force it is clear it is energy dependent.  With increased
energy the particle theoretically has more confinement force.  This alone
could make it take longer for the particle to decay, and one would expect
that the decay time would therefore be affected precisely by the amount of
increase in binding force (which is also the amount predicted by the time
dilation theory). 

 

The Gouanere results you mention are very interesting.  All of the
information I have been able to find states that the results are
inconclusive at best.  Can you provide more information or links where I can
study the experiment and the results you mention?

 

Chip

 

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 1:32 PM
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 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 <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>  

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>  

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/20160713/9ae4bbd0/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/20160713/9ae4bbd0/attachment.jpeg>