[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Hodge John jchodge at frontier.com
Thu Jul 21 10:33:03 PDT 2016


Vivian:In Galileo's time the competing model was the Ptolomiac model. the Ptolomiac model was scientifically preferred model. It was more accurate but more complex. Further, the Copernican model predicted and extended position of the stars - that is, parallax should be able to be measured. Galileo tried to measure parallax and failed. So the Ptolomiac model was the scientifically supported model and the Copernican model was false but could be used as a crude calculating method for sort term predictions. Thus the Church allowed Copernicus' book because the book claimed only a calculating method not a model of reality. Therefore, the Copernican model as a model of reality had to be believed which was the province of the Church. Hence, Galileo got in trouble  with the Church because of belief not (then accepted) science. Some (like Newton) didn't like Polemiac model because the fundamental calculating number for Ptolomy was the length of the solar year which looked fudged. 
The problems for Copernicus was that the size of he universe was vastly underestimated leading to the expectation of parallax with the instruments available to Galileo. The concept that a null measurement only placed a upper bound on the actual number has to wait until the concept of experimental error was developed.  Another problem was that the orbits were assumed to be circular whereas the circles within circles of Ptolemy allowed elliptical (more accurate) orbits.
Instruments to measure parallax became available in the 1830's. Better instruments and elliptical orbits supported Copernicus.Hodge 

    On Thursday, July 21, 2016 11:11 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
 

 Hello Vivian,   Thanks for further clarifying your position.      Richard

On Jul 21, 2016, at 3:06 AM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com> wrote:

Adam K,
One of the easiest astronomical observation to make - it doesn't need a telescope - is to map the position of the brightest lights in the night sky. It was something the ancients did. They noticed most of them were fixed with respect to each other the stars. The Greeks called those that changed their position plantetes, meaning wanderers. We call them planets. It was known from ancient times that the planets occasionally "backtracked" against the fixed star background. Explanations for that were sought since ancient times, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeliocentrismAccording to that site, suggestions of a heliocentric system were first forwarded over two thousand years ago. Copernicus was the first to use mathematics (geometry) to calculate planetary trajectories as observed. He was trying to give a theory that matched the observed planetary trajectories. He did not work out the trajectories from first principles with no knowledge of the real situation. The planetary motions are the reality. Copernicus explained that reality in a manner that enabled predictions of positions of the planets in the future.
Perhaps it would have been easier to understand if I wrote "Experimental measurement is the only reality when it comes to verifying a theory". I maintain that position. 
Vivian
On 20/07/2016, at 10:46 PM, Adam K <afokay at gmail.com> wrote:

"Experimental measurement is the only reality."

Someone should tell Copernicus.


Richard G,
It is good to see that you are using an experimental observation to support or otherwise a model of the electron. My model does predict a radius decrease with increasing electron energy and hence velocity. And yes, it must match observation if it has any validity, "like experimentally measured electrons, a very small (<10^-18m) size at highly relativistic velocities and energies (around 30GeV)". 
One experimental result available to me was due to Bender et al., (1984), "Tests of Mass at 29 GeV Centre-of-mass Energy, Physical Review, D30, p 515. It is a while since I read it and I don't have ready access to the journal. My recollection of that paper was that the authors found that 29 GeV electrons scattered as if they had a scattering cross section (I am not sure if that was radius or diameter) of < 10^-17 m. My model indicates a electron has a rest radius of 1.93 x 10^-13 m. Calculations using my radius reduction with velocity equation indicates a 29 GeV electron would have a radius of just under 0.5 x 10^-17 m and a diameter of just under 10^-17 m. In either definition, my model fits the value measured by Bender et al. To get a value of 10^-18 m requires an energy approaching or exceeding 1 TeV (10^12 eV). 
For that reason I am prepared to consider that my model does match observation, although it does not match the observation reported by Richard. I am unaware of any experiment that shows around 30 GeV electrons having a dimension of ≈ 10^-18 m. 
FYI, my background is that of a PhD physicist who spent 15 years in academia and over thirty years working in industry, running my own high technology companies. I have made a successful living researching, developing, manufacturing and marketing high technology products, including electron detectors, that world's experts in the fields told me they would never work or were of no value. I performed experiments, evaluated the available data, developed a theory, made predictions and built equipment to test my theory. The equipment worked as per my predictions. I have done that in different fields with the same success. As far as I am concerned I have demonstrated to the satisfaction of myself and many others that I can develop theories, back them with science and mathematics and successfully predict significant outcomes. 
Not that such a background means I am right. I learned a long time ago that if I was wrong, I wanted to be the first person to know, not the last. My idea of being wrong is when my theory doesn't match observation. Like any other theorist, my work is only right if it agrees with observation. So far, magnetic moment excluded, no one has pointed out where my work is wrong because it doesn't match observation. That is the only thing that counts. A theory with a physical explanation and appropriate mathematics that matches experiment is usually considered to have some merit. Replacing or reclassifying such a description on theoretical grounds by one that doesn't match experiment would not pass as good science in the real world.
Richard, I am quite happy to have errors pointed out to me. I can then correct my error and move on, as I did when you pointed out my magnetic moment error. But an error must be differences between theory and observation. If an error was due to theory alone, standard model physicists would tell us we are all wrong and we should all give up. I do hope this is the end of why I am wrong on theoretical grounds. Experiment is the only reality when it comes to testing a theory. 

Hi Chip, Grahame, and Vivian,


   Thanks to you all for your further comments.
     I appreciate that we are all in a way working towards a common goal. But different personalities are involved and I think than none of us are ego-less. No one much likes having their physics mistakes pointed out publicly, and there is a psychological need to “save face” sometimes by people whose mistakes are pointed out. But if critical mistakes of active researchers remain unnoted and uncorrected due to fear of pinching someone else's tender ego, the result is I think not good for scientific progress as a whole, nor for the person whose mistakes, if any, are not pointed out. A lot of other peoples’ time can also  be wasted unnecessarily when mistakes are not pointed out in a timely way. Most first class researchers I think appreciate having their mistakes pointed out in a friendly and constructive way so they can correct them and also to avoid future public embarrassment, and to produce a better result later. My feeling is that egos should be expanded to be come more universal, rather than suppressed into insignificance. Scientific creativity is not really a team sport, though group interactions can stimulate creativity. Group scientific projects requiring creative outputs (like at CERN) are more like “herding cats” than creating “group minds”. 
    As for Vivian’s electron model, I now put it (in its corrected form) in the category that Grahame’s model is in, where the electron’s transverse radius doesn’t reduce with electron speed, because this is the result if the mistake I pointed out in Vivian's calculation of the radius of his electron model with increasing speed is corrected. This is not a bad category, and this electron model category actually gains some support from Gouaniere’s electron experiments, though these experiments have not been replicated as far as I know, and may also be subject to multiple interpretations. In quantum mechanics, higher energy electrons are always associated with higher quantum wave function frequencies, not lower frequencies. Those Schroedinger equation higher quantum frequencies could correspond to frequency differences above or below an electron's circulating-photon rest energy frequency f=mc^2/h ,  as I show in one of my articles. But then Vivian's corrected model has the same challenges that Graham’s model has about how to keep the spin of the circulating-photon model to be hbar/2 at all electron speeds, as this is the accepted experimental fact about electron spin, despite Grahame’s reservations. Also a good electron model needs to show, like experimentally measured electrons, a very small (<10^-18m) size at highly relativistic velocities and energies (around 30GeV).
     Richard

All, I know a lot of you have your own version of confined, rotating, toroidal or whatever nomenclature you chose to give your model of an electron being composed of a photon. But so far I have seen very few indications of how your model matches more than one or two known electron properties, let alone predicting unknown and testable properties. It would make the acceptance of your model by others much easier if you gave clear indications of how your model matches known electron properties.
Vivian
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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>


_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at jchodge at frontier.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=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/20160721/6ebabd94/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list