[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Sat Jul 23 04:17:55 PDT 2016


Hi Richard

 

Electron:

My electron model is still evolving.  At this point in its development it is a wave, one Compton wavelength long, looped around twice.  The radius is the wavelength divided by 4 pi. With relativistic motion the radius contracts with 1/gamma and the energy in the wave (and the momentum of the wave) increase with gamma.  The spin angular momentum therefore remains ½ hbar.

 

(My view of the structure of the wave however is not the same as many interpretations of Maxwellian waves.) 

 

Photon:

In my view the photon is a rotational wave, not just a transverse planar wave. Therefore the energy distribution in my imagined photon remains constant and we just sense the electric portion and then the magnetic portion as the wave turns and travels forward. The energy in the electric field of the photon does not magically fall to zero and then reappear as energy in the magnetic field, but rather the energy in both is always constant, and rotating at the photon’s frequency. The electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular. So when we measure the effects of the wave (fields) perhaps on a wire, we see alternating electric and magnetic effects. Multiple photons, with different spin directions, phases, and slight frequency variations can then yield all forms of wave polarization we observe. Plane, circular, with apparent spin and orbital angular momentum, etc.

 

Chip 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 11:27 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

 

Hello Alex and Chip, 

    Do your bag model of the electron and your electromagnetic model of the electron have clear predictions about the radius of your moving electron models? Does the bag model of the electron move in a helical trajectory as the electron moves relativistically, or does it move as a ring? Same for the electromagnetic model? Does it maintain its spin 1/2 hbar at all velocities of the electron model? In this forum there is a variety of views and predictions on this important topic of the energy and momentum structure of a relativistic electron, and it would be good to narrow these down as we get more and deeper insights, both from experiment and from theory. 

       Richard

 

On Jul 22, 2016, at 6:55 AM, Adam K <afokay at gmail.com <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Hi Vladimir,

 

Nice comment on the Nature article. I agree with you. I have always heard that during the dark ages, when philosophy "ossified" as you say, it was the Arabic writers who were doing all the important translating and thinking. Hopefully you do not think I was championing Copernicus as the father of the scientific method. That was not even remotely touched upon in my previous comments. 

 

Adam  

 

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Vladimir Tamari <vladimirtamari at hotmail.com <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com> > wrote:

Hello - I see that the discussion is touching about observation, experiment and theory in the history of science. Every time Galileo and Copernicus are mentioned as the fathers of the modern scientific method, I feel a great injustice is being done to the earlier work done in Baghdad circa 10th. c at the Dar al-Hikma (House of Wisdom) where Greek and Indian books were translated to Arabic, but more importantly new work was done. Elsewhere at that time Al-Hassan Ibn Al-Haytham (Hazen) did work that is nothing more or less than pioneering the scientific method: Theory, observation, experiment, mathematical analysis - in his Book of Optics translated to Latin, and as I argued here, with other works by Arab and Musilm authors, catapulting the Renaissance:

 <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7457/full/499154a.html?message-global=remove> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7457/full/499154a.html?message-global=remove

In today's unfortunate political polarization it seems some people feel it is their duty to erase this heritage - the Wikipedia entry of Ibn-Al-Haytham was seriously decimated by one 'contributor'.

Cheers

Vladimir

 

  _____  

From: afokay at gmail.com <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> 
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:14:15 -0700
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Hi Vivian,

 

It's refreshing to have someone assume I don't understand what they are talking about. Perhaps I also don't understand your clarification, but it seems to say the same thing your rhetorical flourish I was replying to seems to have said. Neither statement seems mysterious, since you place such an emphasis on experimentation in all your emails.

 

I, too, believe in the empirical method, but I think you are not grasping the significance of my gnomic line. I am well aware of retrograde motion, as were the Renaissance philosophers. You did not mention the dominant explanation for retrograde motion in Copernicus' time, which was the theory of epicycles. The reason I mentioned Copernicus was precisely because of epicycles (retrograde motion), the point you raise to brush my line aside. So you seem to be the one who does not understand. 

 

The theory of epicycles explained the observed motion of the planets perfectly. Indeed, as we learned later from Fourier, the theory of epicycles can explain any motion perfectly, so long as you can add enough epicycles. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuU2YCwHjw

 

Copernicus' model made the same predictions as the Ptolemaic one for the motion of the planets. Thus the situation around the 1600s was that you had two theories, both matching the evidence. This is an epistemological situation called underdetermination. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination

 

Your position seems to commit you to not choosing between Ptolemy and Copernicus until further evidence is available. As John H has just pointed out (while I am writing this), in some ways Copernicus was inferior to Ptolemy. So maybe your position commits you to throwing in with Ptolemy. Neither of these routes is correct, in my opinion: the latter because Ptolemy was wrong, and the former because to say "Experimental measurement is the only reality when it comes to verifying a theory" is just too strong. It neglects one of the most important aspects of knowledge generation. 

 

We must take all evidence into account, but we do not generate theories explaining phenomena from the evidence. Theories are generated internally using our intuition, which is inscrutable, and a combinatorial, exploratory method which gives us the sensors of a blind cave prawn. It is possible to generate an enormous number of theories, all of which accord with the presently known facts. I would wager there has been philosophy of science work showing that the number is infinite. The search for theories takes place in an enormous search space, and there are a wide number of constraints we place on our theories to help us reduce the space. The empirical facts are the strongest such constraint, but thankfully not the only one. Others include things like the principle of least action, the energy principle, and other such 'laws' which are not directly measurable. 

 

Probably the strongest non-measurable constraint is that of elegance, beauty, simplicity. In other words, Copernicus. If a theory of the universe is not beautiful, it is very difficult to believe, and I think this is more than a species-specific psychological quirk. We are made of the universe, someplace in our deepest selves we understand exactly what the universe is. The constraint of elegance cannot be measured, but it is a strong influence in theory selection. The better the intuition, the harder it is to believe ugly theories. People with crap intuition can do it, which is a mystery to me. But think of Einstein, the paragon of intuition. (He never bought the Copenhagen Evasion of quantum physics, for which history will grant him even greater accolades.) Think of the way general relativity was created: by a man alone with a few pieces of paper, in an attic in Europe, with a toy telescope incapable of resolving much of anything. I know that the theory was verified by experiment, that is not my point. My point is that pure thought was capable of generating internally from its own insights a system which matched experiments, predicted unimagined experiments, and created entirely new concepts, one of which explained the hearts of galaxies.    

 

If pure thought is capable of such a feat, and underdetermination exists, then surely your position is too strong. 

 

This is a highly interesting topic, though not one I have ever thought much about. I just know the story is more complicated than you allow. For example, you might check out this amazing book: 

 

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/genesis-copernican-world 

 


Adam

 

 

 

 

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com <mailto: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/Heliocentrism

According 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 <mailto: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 afokay at gmail.com <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 vladimirtamari at hotmail.com <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com>  Click here to unsubscribe  <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> 


_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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/20160723/974e775c/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list