[General] Photonic electron models - etc

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Sat Jul 30 08:18:35 PDT 2016


Hi Richard, Grahame, and All

>From my current perspectives, space is 3d Euclidian space, and there is a component of time which is fundamental to the frame of our universe. In my view there is a fixed reference time of space, which is the time of an object motionless in this fixed reference frame of space. What we are able to measure is a time based upon this fixed reference and our motion through space.

Also my current perspective is that space is a medium through which stresses or disturbances propagate. However I believe the evidence indicates that there are velocities faster than the forward propagation velocity of light. In this view, space is unlike any medium with which we are familiar, because the waves traveling through space rotate as they move forward.

So from this perspective, energy is this stress or displacement of the medium of space which must always propagate.  This stress or displacement of space causes things we call fields, as a side effect of the existence and movement through space of these distortions. So in general, as Grahame has also indicated, space is not really moving much.  These disturbances are transient and self-normalizing due to the properties of space. So the things we perceive to be particles actually encompass both local and non-local artifacts and are in a certain sense illusions caused by us also being made of these propagating waves which have been confined in some respects.

Regarding time:

I see no need to assume that the energy (confined wave) in any particle would experience any internal "time dilation".  The energy within the particle is simply still traveling at the same velocity always, regardless of the motion of the particle.  However we know that particles remain stable (and even become more stable) with motion.  Assuming that this added stability is caused by "time dilation" internal to the particle really has no more basis than assuming that all inertial frames are symmetrically relative. We also know that moving particles have had energy added to them to cause them to move, and that this energy remains within the particle as long as the particle continues at its velocity.  E=hf is a pretty strong clue that the confinement of a particle is directly related to its energy content, so it is at least reasonable to consider the possibility that longer lifetimes of relativistic unstable particles are simply due to this greater energy content and resultant greater confinement, and in no way due to any form of time dilation.

Now time dilation is real of course, but its causes for material bodies (collections of atoms) is demonstrable and can be shown from a sound basis.  Even though the confinement force increases with energy and velocity, the relative strength of electric charge does not. So Lorentz transformation of length then naturally applies to material bodies.  The exchange of energy between atoms, through photons, is also slowed by the vector distance which this energy must travel with high velocities of these moving material bodies. Time dilation is the obvious result.

The definition of energy above is in no way a comprehensive definition, but rather a suggested place from which we might continue discussion.  The definition for time is of course speculation, but speculation which seems to have a basis in the observable.

>From time and space, we can then begin to calculate motion of these disturbances.  Then of course from this motion we can discover more about the fundamental property of momentum, followed by inertia.

Collectively we have many of these pieces and we can assemble them into something more coherent.  We may still have several things which remain only partially defined, but at least we can take these steps forward.

Chip



-----Original Message-----
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 8:56 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron models - etc

Hello Grahame (and all),

    I very much appreciate your explaining that your main interest is in understanding the nature of reality, and that specific particle models are a sideline to this. In a way it is the same with me. Reality includes the mental world and conscious experience as well as the physical world (which of course is experienced through the senses as well as through concepts.) But I think that a good particle model can be mind-expanding, particularly if it matches experiment and makes new predictions that are confirmed experimentally.

    You define time as the “flow of energy” and seem satisfied with this definition. But what is “flow” and what is “energy”? Defining one unknown term in terms of two unknown terms does not seem like progress to me. According to Richard Feynman:  “It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is.” (from "The Quotable Feynman”). That may have changed since he said it, but I doubt it. And “flow” implies time or motion or movement, so I don’t think that the term “flow” clarifies time either. I think we will have to go deeper to better understand the nature of time and energy.

    I agree with you that a really good detailed electron model or other elementary particle model may be far off. But still some progress can be made with theoretical particle models that make better and better experimental predictions. Vivian doesn’t invite (at least to me) the pointing out of any further errors in his electron model (although he has acknowledged one serious error that I previously pointed out to him, in the calculation of the electron’s magnetic moment from his model) because he says that experiments will be the best judge of an electron model, and that his electron model is consistent with some experiments and makes other predictions that are subject to experimental testing. He claims that his electron model predicts that the transverse radius of a moving electron decreases as 1/gamma with increasing electron speed. I pointed out an error in his calculation of this result that shows that the transverse radius of his electron model will not decrease at all with increasing velocity, a result which corresponds to the prediction of your electron model. If it would not be too much trouble, would you please check for this error that I found in his calculation and either confirm it or not? HIs article is attached below for your and other’s convenience. I explained the error in my July 14 email to this list as follows:
 
"In your (Vivian’s) 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.”

   It could be claimed that you might not be impartial in checking this error, since confirming it would be consistent with your own electron model showing a constant transverse radius with increasing electron velocity (the error does not support my electron model). But the math is simple enough (Pythagorean theorem) that anyone knowing basic standard relativity calculations who looks objectively at this calculation (it also occurs in the well-known basic  light-clock calculation for time dilation) would I think come to the same conclusion.  The error occurs on page 4 of the article in section 4 The Relativistic Corrections in the middle of column 2. 

      Richard





More information about the General mailing list