[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Wed Jul 13 22:55:22 PDT 2016

Dear Grahame,

I really like your thinking: the fact that you really can think and the way you try to take the full consequences, to the limits, of whatever you come up with. I cannot wait to meet you and get some proper discussions going.

I also think (and agree with you) there is an absolute frame in some sense - but not necessarily that that frame has any first-order effects in terms of the velocity. Where I think there certainly is an “absolute” frame is in terms of rotations. For me that frame is with repect to the CMB. It is worth noting that we are not quite in it – and also that our motion with respect to it does vary with season. These effects should be measurable, and there have been attempts to do so, but these effects are not fully consistent. Anyway one needs to deal with the observed so-called time dilation experiments I’m coming on to soon – and these are a more important challenge.

At high frequencies, such as those in the elementary particles we are considering, rotational effects are much more potent in that they introduce a light-speed rotation horizon (a term introduced by my late father – also a Grahame). Having said this I think you are really missing something about relativity  (especially general covariance) as it is usually understood and I think I am beginning to see what it is. Now I am not entirely sure what I am about to say is entirely correct in nature (in fact I do not think myself that the “generally accepted” view is the whole story) but I will try to give two arguments – the first from the generally accepted standpoint and the experiment which supports it – the second from my own work.

Firstly experiment. You seem to think (correct me if I am wrong) that the effect of the longer period observed for highly relativistic muons requires a “physical effect”. It does not. An observer travelling with these muons would, equally, see our muons having a much longer decay time. The effect is purely that of perspective. We have had a long discussion about this before in this forum. In the relativistic muon frame everything is normal. The muons there decay at exactly the same rate for an observer in that frame as do muons in our frame decay with respect to us. There is no physical slowing of clocks (or shortening of rulers) in a local frame. The maths of usual relative relativity works perfectly symmetrically. Ok – relativity is just a theory – where is the experimental evidence for what I have just said?

At CERN, for example, I worked on two experiments, one a colliding beam experiment, the other a fixed target experiment. In the former the decay of particles is (roughly) in the earth frame. In the fixed target case it is in a highly relativistic frame moving at very nearly the speed of light with respect to the earth (we used 200 GeV muons – so all the products are moving rapidly forwards and downwards into the earth. Now one can measure particle lifetimes in two ways – one by looking at how far they go before they decay into something else, the other (for very short-lived particles) by looking at the width of the rest-mass resonance. There is no difference, as far as I am aware, in the lifetimes and branching ratios (what they decay into) measured by either kind of experiment. This shows pretty conclusively, for me, that the decay is not directly related to a physical property in any fixed frame. It is all a matter of perspective. Father Ted would say “these are small – those are far away” where uncle Einstien might say something like “these are stationary – those are rather fast”.

Secondly there is an important philosophical point for me – that the proper equations describing the dynamics of our universe should not be frame-dependent. In particular the Maxwell equations, for example, should be identical in any frame. This is particularly important for all of our models since the internal photon may be moving at lightspeed in the x direction at one phase, 45 degrees later (its a double loop) its moving at lightspeed in y. This is a very different frame, but both are moving at lightspeed with respect to the earth frame. The frames are highly accelerated (for my by the pivot-field interaction, for Alex by extended gravitation – others have proposed Casimir forces, or rest-of-universe interactions (me too!)). Whatever. The internal photon is following a geodesic. It is following its own, natural, force-free path – according to itself. Local “space” whatever it is, looks flat to the (self) confined photon. In that space The photon thinks it is a perfectly normal photon – photoning along. For us, of course, there appear to be huge accelerations (in our frame) acting on it.  It is finding the origin of these huge accelerations, that is the step beyond our 1997 model and that of most of the other models (with the possible exception of Alex’s – though he has started by putting in the observed angular momentum and inferring (quite rightly!) that there most be something confining it) being proposed here

Now the Maxwell equations work in any proper, orthonormal conformal space (formally, this is because the grad operator may be patched onto any such space – (think of setting up an xyz frame on the surface of our all too spherical earth). That is there are, equally, solutions in Cartesian, Circular, Spherical, Toroidal, Bispherical space and so on– as well as all of their inversions in a unit sphere (see Moon and Spencer’s textbook, for example). If you want to see examples of what such solutions look like see, for example, Alex’s 1973 paper. This is just as well since one observes exactly this set of solutions in nature (with the notable exception of infinite plane waves – the usual textbook example!). Even more importantly reversing this process and putting general covariance in properly to a general relativistic fluid, one gets the Maxwell equations out (this I do briefly in the first of my SPIE papers last year). That is one may use the relativistic nature of space and time to derive the Maxwell equations (or vice versa – the Maxwell equations were always covariant). If one drops relativity one obtains a slightly different set of equations, modified by the Doppler effect with respect to the medium, which are similar to the more complicated equations of fluid mechanics with respect to a medium. This is not what one observes in nature, in free space, for light.

Now one can introduce fixes for this, some of which (Lorentz contraction for example) work in the direction of travel. I’m not aware of any that work properly for such things as the perpendicular transformations of field, such as that we are discussing for the angular momentum,  or for the reciprocal apparent time dilation discussed above but that could just be ignorance on my part and I am willing to be corrected. The big points for me, are a) that relativity is everywhere consistent with experiment and b) that proper relativity works for the highly accelerated frames I am using to describe my double loop model, and nothing else I’m aware of does.

Regards, John W.

Comments in red below ....
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:31 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
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).

Not so. Bound photon transforms as does real photon. Momentum up, "radius" down. Note the quotes. Product constant.

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.]

Agreed. However, in the absence of evidence that angular momentum is not conserved I would rather take it as a good working hypothesis that it is.

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.

Nope, this is not so. As I said above I think this is where you "go into the mist". There is no need for a causal mechanism, as in the muon frame everything is perfectly normal. At least this is the view from the perspective of normal relativity.

  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.

See above.

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.

This is a good inference based on your (incorrect in my view) starting point that there "must be some physical effect".

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.

Agreed here. We are collectively moving forwards.

Best regards to all,
Grahame

Regards, to all again, John.

----- 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:

[cid:B3B7F17E13CA407888399FBD9722CBD6 at vincent]

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/20160714/44802579/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/20160714/44802579/attachment.jpg>