[General] HA: double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

[Burinskii A.Ya.]

Dear all,



Although the letter from David is extremely intriguing, I extend

the line discussed by Richard to support his idea on time dilation

and to add the Lorentz contraction.

In the Bag model, the photon is captured in the bag like a quark.

The spinning bag of Kerr geometry takes the form of extremely oblate

ellipsoid - a disk of Compton radius,  and photon circulates along the

bag border forming zitterbewegung (ZB). Thus, the photon trajectory

along rim of the bag is moving with speed of light and subject to Lorentz

contraction. So, the external observer (!) will not see its real Compton size --

it would be observed as a point-like. (really, the Kerr geometry corrects this,

and the reduced size will be the classical radius r_e \sim r_{Compton} /137.)



What I would like emphasize, that trajectory of the point-like  quark-photon forms indeed

an extended circular string of the Compton length. This string is  quasi-closed,

since its ends are not joined, since correspond to different  times.



The bag model of the electron turns out to be a composed system of  BAG-String -quark.



This relativistic string-photon system has to be retained also for the free photon, and is to be

seen by an external observer as a relativistic point with  time-dilation for external observer.



Alex



.

________________________________
От: Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Отправлено: 18 июля 2016 г. 5:46
Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Копия: Phil Butler; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Mark, Martin van der
Тема: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Hello Grahame and all,

  The way I see it is that John’s and Martin’s equation (21) is just restating the electron’s relativistic energy-momentum relationship  E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 which is an experimental FACT demonstrated countless times in high energy electron experiments.  The value Wc is DEFINED by the equation hbar Wc = mc^2   and  the value Wb is DEFINED by the equation hbar Wb = pc = gamma mv c . Both angular frequencies are theoretical quantities that have never been experimentally observed in an electron as angular frequencies (as far as I know). To call the first angular frequency Wc a time-like oscillation and the second angular frequency Wb a space-like oscillation does not add clarity to the situation, at least for me. Wb is derived from the de Broglie wavelength (by Wb = 2 pi c/Lambda-debroglie) which is an experimental spatial phenomenon.

   What does make sense to me is that in equation (21) the electron's total energy U= E = gamma hbar Wc is the total energy of the photon (in an electron model) composing the moving electron, Uo = hbar Wc = mc^2 is the energy of a resting electron, and p=gamma mv (the electron’s relativistic momentum) is the longitudinal component of the photon’s total momentum P=U/c = gamma mc.  So you get  P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2  when you divide the relativistic energy-momentum equation by c^2.  P, p and mc are all momenta (and momentum components) of the electron that obey the Pythagorean theorem with P, the electron’s total momentum, as the hypotenuse, p the longitudinal momentum component of the helically circulating photon and mc its transverse momentum component.  hbar Wb = pc is NOT a component of the total energy of the electron and is NOT the relativistic kinetic energy of a moving electron, which is KE= (gamma - 1) mc^2 .

   Cesium atomic clocks (like light-clocks) are macroscopic objects and it cannot be assumed that a resting electron, because it may have an internal frequency Wc due to a circulating photon, will act like a macroscopic clock and show time dilation of its internal frequency when it is moving relativistically (though it may show time dilation like a relativistic muon for other reasons), since that internal frequency (in equation 21) is proposed to increase with the electron's internal photon energy U=E= hbar (W-hat) = gamma hbar Wc ,  not decrease due to time dilation as a moving macroscopic Cesium atomic clock or a macroscopic light-clock would.

   Picture a macroscopic vertical light-clock (on a rocket ship moving to the right) with its vertically-moving multiply-reflected light pulses (as seen by an observer riding on the moving rocket ship) seen zig-zagging longitudinally to the right (as detected by an observer on the Earth) as the light-clock in the space ship moves by the Earth to the right. Electrons composing and moving with the light-clock will be increasing their looping frequency (as these longitudinally-moving electrons decrease in size with their decreasing internal wavelength and internal increasing frequency). One zig-zag of the light in the light-clock (showing time dilation —slower ticking —  with the moving light clock, as seen by a stationary observer on the Earth) can correspond to many helical loops of the photon (as seen by the same stationary observer) in an individual electron as it moves along to the right relativistically at speed v with its internal photon traveling helically at the speed of light, and so the electron maintains its speed v equal to the longitudinal speed v of the time-dilated light-clock. As the rocket ship goes faster and faster (increasing gamma) the light clock will tick slower as 1/gamma, while the internal photon in the moving electron will increase its internal light frequency (and looping frequency) proportional to gamma, decrease its internal wavelength as 1/gamma, and decrease the radius of its photon's helical trajectory as 1/gamma^2 (by simple geometry).

   Richard

On Jul 17, 2016, at 1:49 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com<mailto:grahame at starweave.com>> wrote:

Hi John (et al),

Glad to hear that your dad had such a prestigious name!

I've finally got round to responding to your emails of 13th & 14th July.  You'll find my response following your fourth paragraph, the one that includes the bit on muons, since that's where I first have something concrete to respond to.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Williamson<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Phil Butler<mailto:phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz> ; Nick Bailey<mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> ; Anthony Booth<mailto:abooth at ieee.org> ; Mark,Martin van der<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities


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?

I’ve never proposed that the Lorentz Transformation wouldn’t apply reciprocally in an observational sense, in fact I’ve several times gone out of my way to affirm (and demonstrate, in my book) that it would.  To the best of my knowledge, however, there's never been an observer or instrument travelling at relativistic speed that's recorded any evidence of time passing at a slower speed in the earth frame (our static frame) – as SR proposes, and as you keep telling me IS so (and so I am wrong, apparently).  I’m still waiting to hear of ANY evidence of this.  I fully agree – and expect – that an observer or instrument in the frame of those fast-moving muons would clock them decaying at the same rate as we see decay in static muons in the earth frame; this is totally to be expected since the particles and inter-particle signalling within that observer/instrument would be subject to precisely the same physical (‘time dilation’) effects as the muons themselves.  This is accepted – at least the inter-particle signalling bit – by leading figures in mainstream physics (who also regard every effect as necessarily having a cause – which you don’t seem to agree upon).  This would also lead naturally to a fully consistent pattern of behaviour in a fast-moving frame identical to that in the earth frame – since everything is dancing to the same tempo.

John, of course the maths of SR works perfectly: Einstein wasn't an idiot, neither were/are those many thousands since who’ve used his mathematical framework.  Don’t keep telling me the maths is consistent, or that observers in a moving frame will see objects/events in that frame just as we see similar situations in the earth frame – that’s old hat!  Just point me to evidence, collected from observation/measurement made in a fast-moving frame, of time dilation in the earth frame as seen from that fast-moving perspective; it’s my understanding that this group places great store in empirical evidence, let’s have a bit of that regarding the (as yet totally speculative) proposed reciprocity of time dilation.

I’m also not quite sure why you’ve pointed out that the earth frame doesn’t coincide with the CMB rest frame and that that motion of earth rel. to CMB varies with the seasons; unless we're harking back to the earth being the centre of the universe that’s bound to be so (particularly given that in all probability the universe doesn’t HAVE a centre).  Is it not possible that “these effects are not fully consistent”, as you observe, because we're actually measuring effects re a static frame from an objectively moving frame?  That would do it.

You also say that for you there’s a philosophical point “that the proper equations describing the dynamics of our universe should not be frame-dependent”.  For me that sounds disturbingly like Eddington’s philosophical view that “there should be a law of Nature to prevent a star from behaving in this absurd way!” (notable for holding back Chandrasekhar’s findings for decades).  I didn’t start from any ‘philosophical point’, I started with a puzzle: just like working one’s way through a sudoku, I worked through that puzzle and came to (for me) a totally rock-solid conclusion: Special Relativity is a subjective phenomenon brought about as a consequence of particles of matter being formed from loops of light.  I most definitely didn’t start with loops of light, nor did I start with SR – I started with a puzzling question about time, arising from observations re radio waves.

As for your rationalisations re Maxwell’s equations, they also appear somewhat subjective as to what they demonstrate – and I don’t agree with the conclusions that you draw (vive la difference!)  Note that I'm not disputing the objective facts that you quote, just your conclusions from them.  You point to the huge accelerations involved: it might surprise you to hear that, at a very fundamental level, I don’t believe that ANYTHING physical in the universe is actually moving (that’s for another time); certainly I don’t see why accelerations that to us are extremely high should be an impediment to our understanding.

Referring back to your closing remark in your email of 13th July   “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.”, I believe there are two implicit assumptions here that you’ve thrown in.  One is that “accelerating yourself” is the same as “electron passing you fast” – which appears to be a tacit assumption of SR frame symmetry (thus dismissing any suggestion to the contrary, and so invalidating your remark for anyone who doesn’t subscribe to SR objective frame symmetry); the other is, paradoxically, an apparent point against SR.  Figure this: If an electron is moving at speed then the cycle rate of its formative photon is seen in its own ‘rest frame’ identically to the cycle rate of a static electron in the static (lab) frame; this means that the cycle rate of that moving electron’s formative photon will be seen from the lab frame as slowed by a factor 1/gamma (standard time dilation); one could likewise expect the spin of a fast-moving electron to measure the same in its ‘rest frame’ as the spin of a static electron in the static (lab) frame – so, since spin is based on angular momentum (simply a constant factor hbar away) and angular momentum is a time-based measure, why would a static observer ALSO expect to see that fast-moving electron with the same spin as it had in the static frame?  It doesn’t add up.

Just to round off, I’m still waiting to hear how Equation 21 in your ‘Toroidal Photon’ paper can be reconciled with SR.  You show, 100% correctly IMO, that the increased frequency of the formative photon in a moving electron can be resolved into ‘time-like’ and ‘space-like’ components, the former corresponding to the frequency of that same electron in the static frame and the latter being due to the photon’s motion.  So far so good.  It will be clear to the static observer (whose perspective is represented by this equation) that the latter component won’t be apparent to an observer moving with the electron (or in SR terms, won’t even exist for that moving observer).  However, it will also be clear that the time-like component (all of it) WILL be apparent to that moving observer – that’s surely the point of this equation.  If we look at it from the static observer’s perspective we see the time-like component as also perceived by the moving observer – and we also see time running slower for that moving observer – – which means that an atomic clock travelling with that electron (visible to both static and moving observers) will show that time-like frequency component (also visible to both static and moving observers) as running faster than in the static frame.  Whither SR?

I hope you see these questions as an interesting challenge, which is how they are meant.  It's by butting up against each others' perspectives (and sometimes preconceptions, aka philosophies) that we'll hopefully winnow out the wheat from the chaff in our various theories and so come to something satisfying and nutritious for all of us (and ultimately, hopefully, for a whole lot of other people).

Best regards,
Grahame


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<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com<mailto: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:

<image001.jpg>

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


________________________________

_______________________________________________
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>
_______________________________________________
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>