[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Fri Jul 15 08:01:46 PDT 2016


Hi Vivian

 

I am an admirer of your approach to solving these puzzles.  You book is proving very interesting.

 

You wrote in you las email,” Further I suggest the rotating photon idea is the source of the special relativity corrections. ”

 

Actually, if mass in the universe is made of confined energy propagating at c, then the form of relativity caused by this is not really SR.  It is slightly different, but different in very important ways if we wish to really understand the nature of subatomic particles.

 

Chip

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 3:48 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 Richard,

 

I am a physicist who uses mathematics to calculate the extent of the physical effect forwarded. If the calculation matches observation it is good. However it is the ability of the physics and mathematics to make testable predictions that is the major worth of a theory. I have made predictions of some unknown properties of electrons under my presentation. My model stands or falls on those predictions. I believe they will stand. Like I said, I develop a physical description of my model and then apply mathematics to calculate the magnitude of the physical effect. My understanding of the physics leads to those calculations. It is possible that some mathematicians may not be as skilled in experimental physics as myself and therefore may not understand the physics used. That could make the mathematics appear in error. The only way round this is to determine which model matches experimental measurement and can predict unmeasured effects. 

 

That was the reason for my earlier communication. If I am wrong in both the physics and mathematics, my predictions won't match observation. You consider I have made an error. I consider my calculations to be self consistent with the physics involved and they match observation. Your comments indicate you appear not to have understood the physics involved. Transverse dimensions of composite particles, e.g. a hydrogen atom and larger are maintained by electric charge, which doesn't vary with velocity. An electron going from ≈ 10^-13 m to 10^-17 m is not going to make a measurable difference to a particle with a fuzzy radius of ≈ 10^-10 m.  My model is consistent with special relativity. Further I suggest the rotating photon idea is the source of the special relativity corrections. 

 

In summary, if you wish to maintain that my work is in error, please indicate where it doesn't match observation. Experimental measurement is the only reality. 

 

Vivian

 

On 15/07/2016, at 2:05 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> > wrote:





Hi Vivian,

 

  Thanks for your inputs. I appreciate your appeal to experimental data as the final word on the predictions of different physical hypotheses. But hypotheses can have internal calculation errors or assumptions which reduce their value for making predictions. In your electron model, you calculate that the transverse radius of your electron model reduces as 1/gamma with increasing electron velocity. But your “radius” in your calculation is just a transverse length in relation to your light calculation, and so your light calculation result is therefore not specific to electron size but to ANY transverse length. The mistake you make in your calculation of the reduced electron radius is to assume that the travel time T  for light in the transverse direction (the electron’s rest frame) is the SAME travel time T for light traveling along the hypotenuse that is the corresponding light path for a moving electron. Since the hypotenuse is clearly longer than the other sides and so the travel time must also be longer than in the rest frame, your calculation brings you to conclude the the “radius” has decreased by a factor of 1/(gamma), whereas you should conclude from your calculation that ANY transverse length including macroscopic lengths also reduces by 1/gamma, which is a violation of special relativity for “no length contractions in the transverse direction of a moving object” for macroscopic objects.

 

   The second significant error in your paper is that you assume that the electron’s relativistic kinetic energy is pc= gamma mv c   (coming from the electron’s relativistic energy-momentum equation)  rather than its correct formula (gamma-1)mc^2 . From this error you “derive” the de Broglie wavelength of your moving electron model. 

 

   Richard

 

 

 

On Jul 14, 2016, at 12:28 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> > wrote:

 

David:

 

Have a read of Light is Heavy :  <http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478> http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478 . It talks about a photon in a mirror-box. If you trap a massless photon in a mirror-box, it increases the mass of that system. When you open the box, it’s a radiating body that loses mass,  <https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/> just like Einstein said. Note how Einstein used the words body and electron on the same line? 

 

<image001.jpg>

 

The electron is a photon in a box of its own making. Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-momentum for a wave propagating linearly at c. Electron mass is a measure of resistance to change-in-momentum for a wave going round and round at c. It’s that simple. I am sure of it.   

 

Regards

John D

 

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of  <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
Sent: 13 July 2016 23:06
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>;  <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> phys at a-giese.de
Subject: Re: [General] HA: double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

 

Richard

 

In the quest for the single model, one has to consider the possibility that more than one is right. 

 

Clearly, with present peer-reviewed articles all six do not seem compatible. However, three of them might fit together into a cohesive model. While I'm still looking at Grahame's and John D. I've been following Vivian's, but not sure where to fit this model just yet.

 

There are at least two general approaches. For me, one is dimensional and the other is topological state. 

 

Now, one could simply sort theories by dimension. Chip has a 2D model, Richard a 3D model and Williamson/van der Martin have a 4D model. So one obvious direction is to determine if these models can be nested with the 2D inside the 3D inside the 4D.

 

Topologically, the 2D model appears as if it's a mapping of the 3D model but is this model compatible only with a 3D spindle torus, or is it possible to have some variation which fits a 3D ring torus?

 

As a side note, I've often wondered whether the spindle is part of the source of mass for the electron. Of course, this requires one to use a lowered permittivity in between the spindle and shell leaving a volume of condensed matter in the spindle. Speculatively, the spindle might be used to explain inertia and perhaps even gravity.

 

The 4D model will simple tie up one's brain in knots, Hopf to be specific. However, one could view this theory as the overarching theory with other 3D and 2D models able to fit within this theory.

 

The 2D theory is of interest since last year Weyl particles were observed in a 2D layer. However, a Weyl particle is charge without mass unlike Dirac particle which has charged mass. 

 

In between the Dirac and Weyl particles are the Majorna fermions which makes sense if one uses a horn torus since a Majorna fermion is it's own antiparticle. Gauthier's Spin 1 electron would seem to be a Majorna fermion.

 

One is entitled to defend their model. However, nature has the final vote and takes on all-comers. Whether all the proposed models of the electron are simply part of a nested solution set...and that might include spacetime itself which is essentially a zero-D model...still does not explain everything known, predicted and especially knowable unknowns.

 

Best

 

David

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


  _____  


From: Richard Gauthier < <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com>
To: " <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> phys at a-giese.de" < <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> phys at a-giese.de>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [General] HA: double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

 

Hello Grahame, John and others,

 

    I’m thinking that with such concentrated attention on double-looping photon models of an electron that a breakthrough may be imminent. Since all our (John W, Chip, Graham, Vivian, John D and my) approaches are quantitatively different (despite their double-loop nature) there’s bound to be a clash of models and opinions, which is great as long a people keep an open mind, which I think we all support.

 

    Grahame, what do you think is the meaning of the transverse velocity c/gamma in your (and my) electron models? Is anything moving at this speed? I don’t think so. The helically-circulating photon of a moving electron is moving at c. The electron is moving at v in the longitudinal direction. The electron's transverse momentum mc makes sense physically as an invariant independent of the electron’s speed. But is anything moving at the speed v/gamma in the longitudinal direction?

 

    Grahame, how can each full double loop of the circulating photon of a moving electron be a single wavelength long in your model? It would mean that the single wavelength of the circulating photon is increasing with electron velocity in order for the photon’s wavelength to fit (stretch) along the increasingly long two double loops of a helix of radius R=hbar/2mc of your moving electron model (same R as in your resting electron model). But since the energy of the electron is increasing with speed as E=gamma mc^2 = hf, the circulating photon’s frequency f is increasing as f=gamma fo (where fo=mc^2/h in a resting electron) so its wavelength is (by c=lambda f) decreasing as h/(gamma mc) with increasing electron speed as compared to a resting wavelength h/mc . Something’s got to give! In my model it is the radius of the photon's helix, which (I calculated) has to be R/(gamma^2) for the helically-circulating photon of a moving electron to have a length of one wavelength h/(gamma mc) along each double-loop length.  This also partly solves the experimental issue of the experimental size of an electron being less than 10^-18 m at around 30GeV in electron scattering experiments, which your model doesn’t address.

 

    Grahame, In your model, I repeat: if it composed of a circulating spin 1 hbar photon (at constant helical radius R) of spin hbar, the electron model at relativistic speeds will have a total longitudinal spin of about 1 1/2  hbar, which doesn’t match experiment at all. Again, something has got to give to match experimental spin z-component of hbar/2 of the electron at all velocities.

 

    John W, does your new photon/electron model clearly satisfy the electron’s experimentally established relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 ? Does it also satisfy the theoretical relationship P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2 where P=E/c is the total momentum of the circulating photon, p is the longitudinal momentum of the electron, and mc is the circulating momentum in a resting electron? If so, it means that the electron’s internal momentum mc and the electron’s longitudinal momentum p=gamma mv are at right angles. How does this relate to your moving electron model?

 

    John W, you have said earlier that your electron model has spin 1/2 hbar at all electron velocities. Does a calculation show this or is there some symmetry argument that proves this for your model?

 

    John W, I think no one here is claiming that the spin of an electron is at all like a spinning top, so this is a bit of a "straw man” argument. Thank you very much for your fuller explanation about spin.

 

    My current thinking about the electrons increasing their internal frequency f=gamma fo with electron speed means that the electron’s internal frequency (due to its circulating photon) is NOT like a macroscopic clock, since this electron frequency does not obey relativistic time dilation (it speeds up rather than slows down with increasing electron speed). This doesn’t mean that the electron (or a radioactive muon) doesn’t show time dilation in other ways, as with the increasing long half-life a relativistic muon with increasing speed compared to a resting muon.

 

   Finally (for now) electrons therefore are not like macroscopic objects like (light-clocks) that can reflect light up and down while the vertical light-clock moves in the horizontal direction maintaining a constant transverse length, to show and derive time dilation for the macroscopic light clock.  Electrons decrease their transverse size with longitudinal speed, but atoms and macroscopic objects do not. Vivian also pointed this out in his article, and I think that John W agrees also.

 

    Richard

    

 

On Jul 13, 2016, at 2:56 AM, Albrecht Giese < <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:

 

Sorry John, I have a different intention.

 

My intention is not to confirm Dirac. My intention is to explain particle physics with little or no use of quantum mechanics.

 

The result of Dirac (frequency of zitterbewegung) was never confirmed by an experiment. My result is confirmed with high precision. Even though textbooks say that it is not possible by classical means. It is possible, I have shown it.

 

Regards, Albrecht

 

 

Am 13.07.2016 um 07:13 schrieb John Williamson:

Sorry Albrecht you are just wrong,

Just look at Dirac's equation for the zitterbewegung and note the factor of 2.

Regards, John.

  _____  

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Albrecht Giese [ <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> genmail at a-giese.de]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:55 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] HA: double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Dear Richard, dear Alex,

we all have an own model for the electron, me as well. I refer to my model and I have the following results (now giving more precise numbers). And the model is supposed to cover all leptons and all quarks, to a certain degree photons as well. Here now the numbers for the electron.

>From the mass mechanism (giving m = h(bar) / (R*c) there follows (with a necessary correction for the electric charge)

R = h(bar) / (m*c) * 1/(1-alpha/2pi)    = 3,8660827 * 10^-13 m

Now the classical result for the magnetic moment of the electron is

mu = c*e0*R/2  = 9,2847844 *10^-24  Amp*m2

The measured value is mu = 9,2847646 *10^-24  Amp*m2

The difference of both is a factor of 1,000002 corresponding to 2* 10^-6 deviation.     This is the magnetic moment of the electron calculated by purely classical means with use of this particle model. I think that this is a strong argument for this radius which follows from this model. 

Regarding the zitterbewegung, Schrödinger has evaluated the Dirac function with the result that this oscillation has a speed of c; he has in my understanding not made any statements about the frequency. According to my text book about the Dirac function, this frequency is quite vague. And this frequency was never measured. In contrast to the magnetic moment of my result above. 

A frequency which is well known and verified is the relation between frequency and energy: E = h*f . And this relation follows also very straight from my model. So, I think that this is the better argument. - And I do not need this funny rule of a circuit of 720 degrees.

Albrecht

 

 

Am 10.07.2016 um 05:51 schrieb Burinskii A.Ya.:

Albrect,
 
 
 
Richard is right. Two loops of photon means that one half (!) of the Compton length lies on 360 degree.
 
One more argument from Kerr geometry, where radius  J=ma  (my model).  Setting  J= hbar /2,  gives
 
radius a = hbar/2m.
 
 
 
Alex
 
________________________________
От: Richard Gauthier [ <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com]
Отправлено: 9 июля 2016 г. 23:59
Кому:  <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> phys at a-giese.de; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Тема: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities
 
Albrecht,
  A better estimate of the size of the electron from Dirac’s and Schrodinger's work is that its radius is hbar/2mc = 1.93 x 10^-13 m (not your value hbar/mc of 3.86 x 10^-13 m) . This corresponds better to Schroedinger’s size estimate of “about 4 x 10-13” since the electron “size" most likely refers to its diameter not its radius. Furthermore, the radius hbar/2mc comes out of Hestenes’ geometric algebra analysis of the Dirac equation. It is also consistent with the 720 degree symmetry of a Dirac spinor. And it generates the election’s spin hbar/2 easily when the radius hbar/2mc is multiplied by the circulating photon model’s momentum mc  :    S= r x p = hbar/2mc x mc  = hbar/2 for a resting electron, without having to make up a complicated explanation about the missing factor of 1/2 that you get from using the radius hbar/mc to calculate the electron’s spin. Furthermore, the hbar/2mc radius generates the Dirac equation electron’s zitterbewegung frequency Fzitt=2mc^2/h which the radius hbar/mc does not.
      Richard
 
 
On Jul 8, 2016, at 12:06 PM, Albrecht Giese < <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
 
Grahame,
 
regarding the radius of the electron, I think that it is well defined.
 
Schrödinger evaluated "the size" of the electron in his famous paper of 1930 by QM means, and his result was "about 4 * 10^-13 m". From my model there follows a more precise value which is R = 3.86 * 10^-13 m.
What about the spin? If the mass of a particle is m = h(bar)/(R*c)  (this follows from my model) then you can reorder it: m*R*c = h(bar). This is the classical definition of the angular momentum. The result is constant for a lepton and for a quark independent of the individual particle, but it has a factor of 1/2 missing. The cause is that the mass follows here from a special mechanism which is not reflected by the classical understanding of a  mass which is distributed within the particle.
 
If interested please look at my site "Origin of Mass". (  <http://www.ag-physics.org/> www.ag-physics.org <http://www.ag-physics.org/> <http://www.ag-physics.org/> )
 
Best regards
Albrecht
 
 
Am 08.07.2016 um 11:45 schrieb John Williamson:
Yep it is,indeed not so simple.
 
Grahame, you say ...
 
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)
 
Hmm, I kind of do and do not agree. This kind of thing is (perhaps) part of the story, but anyway only a part. Such a thing is, indeed A component of angular momentum, but it is wholly inadequate to describe quantum spin. It is the only component for simple models where a something goes round and round in circles in ordinary space, even so it immediately begs the question "what is R?" and then the further question "what is m?" let alone the deeper questions - why that R and why that m? and what is it orbiting about and what is orbiting?
 
Going to "what is R?. The R needs to be, in my view, at least “complex”. I recently read your 1973 article Alex. Very beautiful. 1973! Had we been aware of it at the time I’m sure Martin and I would have referenced it as a possible confinement scenario. There you recognize, correctly, the huge angular momentum density and use that as an input. I think the subsequent double covering problems  and the sign change similar to those encountered by other folk in trying to model stuff using the half-integer Legendre polynomials, are best treated by going more complex than complex, and using a proper non-commutative algebra. Tricky, I know, but nature, (especially 3D rotations) IS non-commutative.
 
Coming back to angular momentum and the underlying nature of spin. This IS hard. No simple way round it. Properly, the momentum is itself contains a division of space by time (the velocity). It is properly a bi-vector. Further, the orbital angular momentum (what Grahame is talking about), contains a multiplication of this by a perpendicular vector (R ). That is, properly, a tri-vector (the dual of a vector).  Remember, torque and energy have the same SI units (force times distance), but are quite different (energy is a scalar, torque is a bi-vector). Same kind of thing needed here in your thinking and visualisation (but worse). You can think of the bi-vector ness (of the trivector) either in your momentum or in your “radius” –either way hypercomplex. Also – to go further you need to go to differential forms – not just see this as just some mass m orbiting on some (massless) stick of fixed length R! Sorry Grahame, but this is what your model of angular momentum looks like to me. Orbiting around what? What is orbiting and what is it orbiting around?
 
This all sounds pretty horrible, but it is not as bad as you think. The Maxwell equations already contain much of this complexity, and describe light well. One of the Maxwell equations IS the (partial at least) tri-vector equation for the electromagnetic fluid. Analysing this properly, with the right extensions, does give an intrinsic angular momentum density which can be integrated. I’m not very good at this kind of thing, but that is just the kind of thing I’m trying to do.
 
My new photon wavefunction does, at least do this. As the energy varies the curvature varies inversely to maintain the angular momentum at hbar to arbitrary energies. Sticking this into our electron model then gives a half-integral spin at arbitrary energies (since it is a double-loop and transforms, further, as a looping photon).
 
Anyway gotta go .. still dealing with fallout from the exams …
 
Regards, John.
 
 
________________________________
From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [ <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 6:13 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
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 < <mailto:grahame at starweave.com> grahame at starweave.com <mailto: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> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> <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 < <mailto:grahame at starweave.com> grahame at starweave.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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> "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  <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
<a href= <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
 
 
 
[ <https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png> https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png] <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>    Virenfrei.  <http://www.avast.com/> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
_______________________________________________
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 <mailto: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> "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  <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> phys at a-giese.de
<a href= <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

 


 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Virenfrei.  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com







 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Virenfrei.  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
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-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> 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  <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> 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 viv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.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/20160715/50e2ebc1/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list