[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

Sat Jul 23 13:05:02 PDT 2016

Hello Grahame, Chip, John W and all,

   I appreciate your persistence with this question about the calculated spin of electron models at relativistic energies, and also about the evidence for an experimental value of electron spin of 1/2 at high energies. The second requires a knowledgeable expert high energy physics experimenter’s answer, I think, based on the experimental evidence for this. The first needs to be resolved by people like us who don’t necessarily accept the idea of a point-like electron with intrinsic spin 1/2, but who want our electron models to match the experimental evidence about the electron as closely as possible.  I believe that John W said that his latest electron model has spin 1/2 at all energies. I asked him several e-mails back if he knows this about his electron model from a spin calculation with his electron model, or by some symmetry argument. I think we would like to know that this invariant spin 1/2 result for his relativistic electron model comes from a calculation if possible. But I don’t see how John W or anyone else can start with a circling spin 1 photon to get a spin 1/2 resting electron (that part is OK for a double looping 1 Compton wavelength h/mc photon and I think we “double-loopers" are agreed about this), and also also get a spin 1/2 relativistic electron model from the same circulating spin 1 photon, for the reason that we have discussed: more and more of the spin 1 photon’s spin is in the longitudinal direction for a fast moving electron model as the speed of the electron increases towards highly relativistic velocities, so how does this relativistic circulating-spin-1-photon electron model’s spin ever fall much below 1 hbar at highly relativistic velocities?

    This is one reason why I think that an electron model has to be composed of a circling spin 1/2 (and charged) photon from the beginning (in the resting electron), so that this spin 1/2 of the photon model will dominate in the electron model at relativistic velocities, while the contribution to the electron model’s spin in the double-looping resting photon (which is 1/2 hbar in the resting electron) drops off (as 1/gamma^2) towards zero at relativistic electron velocities.

> On Jul 23, 2016, at 6:24 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chip & Richard (et al.),
>  
> Chip, I'd fully agree with you that the formative photon for an electron must be a circularly polarised wave (which is what I think you're describing) - a plane or elliptically polarised wave is just superposition of elements of left and right circular polarisation, that doesn't fit for me in formation of an elementary particle.
>  
> I'm still a little puzzled, though, about aspects of your electron model.  If radius contracts with motion at exactly the inverse of the wave frequency - which itself relates to speed as in the Relativistic Energy-Momentum Relation - this would seem to lead to a complete double-cycle completing in a moving electron in the same time from the perspective of the static observer as it does for the static electron; if an atomic clock is now placed alongside that electron, first static with it then moving with it, that atomic clock will slow down from the static observer's perspective - but the photon will take the same time to complete its double-cycle.  If we now consider this scenario from the perspective of an observer moving with the electron, presumably they will see the photon completing its double-cycles as the static observer does - but they'll see the clock ticking off LESS time per double-cycle (as the static observer does) than the static observer sees for clock and electron when static.  How do you reconcile this with SR?  Or don't you?  [I know you don't consider an elementary particle to be subject to time dilation internally - but this is a different 'observer experience' for an EXTERNAL observer.]
>  
> Likewise I'm not clear how you can derive the Lorentz Transformation from this setup (as I believe you say you have)?  How do you DEFINE the passage of time?
>  
> Thirdly, you note that your setup conserves spin angular momentum; this is true if we only take into account the angular momentum caused by the photon's linear momentum acting cyclically - but what of the spin angular momentum of the photon itself (hbar): in the helical motion of the photon when the electron is moving, there will be a component of photon spin acting around the axis of the direction of motion of the electron. [I don't consider this a serious issue, but it seems Richard might - see below.]
>  
>  
> Richard
>  
> You ask Alex and Chip whether their electron models maintain spin-1/2 at all velocities; I'd be interested to know whether you have any reference to empirical evidence that electron spin is conserved at relativistic speeds (rather than just conjecture).  I'm finding it extremely difficult (as I may have said before) to envisage ANY configuration in which a photon moves helically in a moving electron in such a way that the increasing (with electron speed) component of photon spin in the electron's direction of motion at all times exactly balances the decrease (which there must be, if the books are to balance as you require) in the angular momentum conferred on the electron by the cyclic motion of the photon with its increasing linear momentum.  I'm wondering, therefore, whether this is an absolute requirement for a photon-formed electro model (since it's beginning to look a bit like an impossibility!) or whether this is just supposition based on text-book stuff which may itself regard spin as inviolate for reasons that might broadly be regarded as 'dogma'?
>  
>  
> I'd also again put out a plea to anyone who can give me a compelling reason (if there is one) why 'confinement' of an electron-forming photon cannot be as a result of self-interference across the interior of such a structure (as per the attachment with my last mailing).
>  
>  
> Many thanks,
> Grahame
>  
>  
>  
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
>> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 12:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities
>> 
>> 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 <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 <mailto: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
>>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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/20160723/df41280e/attachment.htm>