[General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Mon Jun 6 08:54:46 PDT 2016

Hello Vivian,

  Thanks for your further comments.

      Circulating photons cannot be the origin of gamma because gamma occurs in relativistic doppler shifting of normal photons. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect .

      I do not insist on the correctness of my model. Only a fool would do that. 

     No one knows why an electron is charged. How should I know what causes a spin-1/2 charged photon, proposed to compose an electron, to be charged? The circulating photon in your electron model is also charged. Why is that? 

     The property of free space that requires gamma to be applied, is the same property of free space that causes the speed of light c to be the same as measured in all inertial frames. And nobody knows why that is. Do you? But experimental high energy physicists work with gamma every day with the momentum equation p=gamma mv  and the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4  where E=gamma mc^2 , in order to get particles to circle round and round at a constant radius with increasing energy but always at speeds less than the speed of light. Let’s say that gamma is an unexplained experimental fact that also follows from the unexplained (apparent) constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, independent of the speed of the source or receiver of the light.

     Louis de Broglie didn’t support his theoretical prediction of the electron’s wavelength lambda=h/(gamma m v) with experimental observations as you recommend. Those came later, and by others, for which he then received the Nobel prize, as did the experimenters who confirmed his hypothesis. You don’t get this prize for predicting what is already known or experimentally established.

  If we have different interpretations of p, the momentum of a particle with or without mass, mine is the standard interpretation:  p=gamma mv for a particle with mass and p=h/Lambda for a photon. Both expressions fit into the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 .  What is your interpretation of momentum? 

  I’ve proposed a new variety of photon that carries spin 1/2 and is electrically charged. Just recently spin 1/2 photons were discovered.  What have you proposed about photons? I think that this discussion list is doing exactly what it should be doing—promoting an exchange of ideas in a group effort to increase our understanding of the nature of light and particles.

    with best regards,
         Richard

> On Jun 6, 2016, at 12:50 AM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com> wrote:
> 
> Richard,
> 
> You are missing my points.
> 
> First and foremost this started as a discussion group on the nature of photons. Somehow this topic, which is not well understood, has been side tracked to discussions of people's favourite model for the structure of some aspects of matter. I have made a few comments about the nature of photons as I understand them. Chip has added some comments. Surely we should all revert to that and add our own thoughts about the nature of photons, supporting them with experimental observation.
> 
> Second, it is best to support any theoretical work with experimental observation. What experimental observation does my work not fit? I am not concerned with it not fitting according to someone else's theory. 
> 
> Third, you insist on the correctness of your model. Fine, so a theoretician should! You wish me to change my calculations to match your model, yet you haven't answered the two questions pertinent to the physical aspects of your model. What causes the photon to be charged? What is the property of free space that allows the gamma correction to be applied? My work strongly implies that the gamma correction is due to the rotating photon model. 
> 
> Fourth, I agree that energies add linearly as scalar quantities, in Newtonian mechanics. In relativistic mechanics adding energy changes both velocity and mass. I have no intention in going into detail on this, but these are separate quantities that combine to give momentum. IMHO, part of the applied energy generates velocity and part increases mass. This means the energy is not added linearly. Rather, that is the origin of E^2 = p^2.c^2 + m0^2.c^4. It is possible that we have different interpretations of p. 
> 
> So why don't we agree this is the end of the discussion on our respective models, at least until there is experimental evidence that establishes further facts that demonstrate the situation one way or the other.
> 
> In the meantime, let us concentrate on defining photon properties. Can you add anything?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Vivian Robinson
> 
> On 06/06/2016, at 9:16 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Vivian,
>> 
>>    Thank you for your detailed reply. It’s always better for one’s written mistakes to be pointed out by a well-wisher. An arXiv article http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265 <http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265>  by Qiu-Hong Hu on “The nature of the electron"
>> made the same mistake (on bottom of p.13)  in calculating the magnetic moment of a double-looped electron. I emailed him twice pointing out his error but he never replied (so I’m not sure he received my emails), but his article was never corrected on arXiv (I just checked.)
>> 
>>     Here’s an error in your article that you can correct quickly:    At the bottom of page 13 in your article, the vertical leg of the right triangle is labeled KE = pc = h Fke . But the kinetic energy KE of a relativistic electron is not equal to pc= (gamma mv)c .  The relativistic kinetic energy KE of a particle is  KE = (gamma-1)mc^2 which is clearly not equal to pc = (gamma mv)c  although both terms go to zero as v approaches zero. Actually the vertical leg of your triangle is correctly labeled as pc but not as KE, according the the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 .  It is also correct that E = gamma mc^2 = mc^2 + KE = mc^2  +   (gamma-1)mc^2 . But this is a linear and not squared  sum since energies add linearly as scalar quantities. 
>> 
>>       Now, it turns out that there is some usefulness in equating KE with h Fke as you did, although KE = h Fke should not be on the vertical leg of your triangle. On the second page of my article at  https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation <https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schr%C3%B6dinger_Equation> (attached below), I show that the electron’s kinetic energy KE can be expressed as hbar w (where w means angular velocity omega), or as you expressed on the vertical leg of your triangle: KE = h Fke , where Fke = w/2pi. This result is derived from the earlier expression in my article that the total energy E of the circulating charged photon is given by E=h w(total) = h (wo + w)  where h wo corresponds to mc^2 of a resting electron and h w corresponds to the electron’s KE. Since E=mc^2 + KE =  h wo + h w  and since mc^2 = h wo,  it follows by subtraction that KE = h w which corresponds to your formula KE = h Fke .   In the non-relativistic limit (where Schrodinger’s equation is used) we have KE=(p^2)/2m . So for a  free non-relativistic electron we have (p^2)/2m = h w . And for a non-relativistic electron in an electric potential well V(x) we  have  (p^2)/2m  +  V(x) = h w  . You can see how this leads to the  time dependent Schrodinger equation:   
>>  -hbar^2/2m d^2 PSI (x,t) /dt^2  + V(x) PHI (x,t) = i hbar d PSI(x,t)/ dt    where for a free electron ( V(x)=0 ) ,  PSI =Ae^i(kx-wt)  where p=hbar k  and KE=hbar w
>>   
>>     So your Fke = w/2pi corresponds to the w in the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. This correspondence is in my opinion is why Schrodinger’s time dependent (and also time independent) equation works — its basic formula  KE  + V = hw comes from the circulating spin-1/2 charged photon model of the electron with its relativistic momentum equation P^2 = (mc)^2 + p^2   where P=E/c , which corresponds to the electron’s relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 = m^2 c^4 .
>> 
>>    The other significant mistake in your paper was in your electron radius derivation, by treating the time interval t as the same in two different reference frames, although it should have been t’=gamma t (t being the proper time), where gamma comes into the derivation of time dilation because the speed of light c is (taken to be) constant in all inertia frames. You choose to not correct this mistake, claiming that you will go by experimental results. But you are not the only one predicting (from your incorrect calculation) that the transverse radius of an electron decreases as 1/gamma with the electron’s increasing velocity. John Williamson claimed the same relationship 1/gamma relationship based on general energy considerations for a moving electron. In my spin-1/2 charged-photon model of the electron, where the radius of the charged photon is directly proportional to the photon’s wavelength (R=L/4pi) and therefore inversely proportional to its energy, also gives the same 1/gamma relationship the change of the transverse electron radius with increasing electron speed. 
>> 
>>    If you will not believe me, I request that someone like John W or Martin (or anyone knowing basic relativistic time dilation calculations) take a few minutes to check your time-electron radius calculation in your article and give his opinion to all of us. If they concur with my result and you still wish to insist that only experiment will tell if your radius calculation is correct, then I have nothing more to say on this.
>> 
>>      with best regards,
>>         Richard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron.pdf>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Richard,
>>> 
>>> Regarding your comments below. You consider my calculations to be in error. I do not. My philosophy on life includes, but is not limited to:- 
>>> 1	If I am in error, I wish to be the first person to know that, not the last. That way I can correct it quickly.
>>> 2	Experiment is the only arbiter of theory. 
>>> 3	I do not believe it is necessary for me to justify my theory because I won't publish it unless I have experimental evidence that my calculations match known properties. 
>>> 4	Reduce the mathematics to its simplest form. 
>>> 
>>> For a theory to be worth anything, it should also make predictions that can be tested. You will see that my article made 16 matches with observation. You will note that when you pointed out the error of my Bohr magneton derivation I accepted it. However I will still maintain that the value of the Bohr magneton is electric charge multiplied by its radius. You will also note that I have made 7 predictions of unknown or known and not recognised electron properties under this rotating photon model. These should be used to verify or disprove the model. I am happy to consider evidence that suggests verification or otherwise. 
>>> 
>>> As far as my use of gamma is concerned, I did not apply it as you suggest. That requires an unknown property of space to force gamma on to everything that moves. In my situation I suggest that gamma is introduced to individual moving particles, electron, proton, neutron, muon, etc, by their rotating photon structure and Pythagoras' theorem, as presented. I suggest you may have mis interpreted the change of radius. Experimentalists measure the electron as a point particle when accelerated to high voltages, e.g. 10^17 to 10^18 eV. You will find they agree with the reduction of radius as calculated in my paper. 
>>> 
>>> I do not wish to change my approach to the derivation of the de Broglie wavelength. IMHO it is physically sound, mathematically correct and matches observation. You are perfectly entitled to disagree. There are many pathways to calculating physical values. For one method to be preferred over another it must make predictions that other pathways don't make, which predictions are verified when tested experimentally. I will stick by my predictions. 
>>> 
>>> To All 
>>> 
>>> The original objective of this group was to discuss the structure of photons and try to come to a better understanding of them. I now find it has changed to people trying to justify their model of matter. Some are based upon toroidal (WvdM) or rotating (VR) photons, which have relevance. Both of those models suggest a reason for the electron to have charge. Richard, your model appears to be based upon rotating charged photons and assuming the special relativity is a property space imposes upon the electron (correct me if I am wrong). Why are some photons charged and others not? What is the property of space that imposes gamma upon moving particles? Others are based on hypothesised rotars, hods or other undetected particles. I wonder if this is the correct forum?  
>>> 
>>> Getting back to a proposed photon structure. I am happy with the idea that photons are electric and magnetic field oscillations in the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of space. The fields are perpendicular to each other. They are sinusoidal, at least at frequencies less than 10^18 Hz. They have velocity c and wavelength lambda, related through c = nu.lambda. They have an energy E = h.nu and mass h.nu/c^2. They only have that mass when travelling at c. They have a finite length made up of a number of oscillations of lesser amplitude. This is justified because they take longer to be emitted from an atom than the inverse of their frequency.  Most photons are circularly polarised and have a spin of hbar. This corresponds to their oscillation making a 360˚ rotation every wavelength. Plane polarised photons have the electric and magnetic fields always in the same direction and hence have zero spin. Other spins may be possible. Entangled photons are identical and sufficiently close that they adopt each other's orientation. When later separated, the spin of one will determine the spin of the other.
>>> 
>>> There is vastly more to the photon than the briefest introduction to an abstract given above. If people have other explanations supported by experimental evidence, or evidence that parts of the above are wrong, I would be happy to receive them. Please, when forwarding ideas, supporting them with experimental observation would be a huge advantage. IMHO, we should stick to the structure of the photons so that, by the time the next SPIE conference is held, Chandra can point to the success of this discussion group in contributing to a better understanding of them. 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Vivian Robinson
>>> 
>>> On 04/06/2016, at 8:15 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hello Vivian,
>>>> 
>>>>    Thanks for your recent comments, and for resending your electron model article, which gave me an opportunity to take a second look at it. It is definitely a pioneering article, particularly since you were unaware of John and Martin’s 1997 article at the time.
>>>> 
>>>>     The last time I critiqued your article, I pointed out three significant errors, one of which (the error in calculating the electron’s magnetic moment) you acknowledged at the time. For the others, you said that experiment would be the best judge.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>      But let me repeat the two other significant errors that I spotted, which affect other relativistic derivations in your article.
>>>> 
>>>>      The first error occurs when you derive the radius of the circular orbit of the double-looping photon of a moving electron, where the electron is moving in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the orbit. You called the time t as the time for the photon to move in the purely circular orbit, so 2 pi Ro = ct  .  Then you use the same value t in calculating the triangular distance relationships for a moving electron, which are (2 pi Rv)^2 = (vt)^ + (ct)^2 , where Rv is the radius of the particle when it it is moving at velocity v.  In the first case, t is measured in the frame of the particle itself. In the second case, t is measured in the frame in which the particle is moving, as seen by a stationary observer.  Your derivation is analogous to the standard derivation of relativistic time dilation for a moving “light clock” in which the light pulse is traveling up and down vertically (perpendicular to the direction of the horizontal movement of the light clock) in the frame of the stationary light-clock, but the reflecting light pulse follows a zig-zag trajectory for the horizontally-moving light clock (mounted on a moving train for example) as seen by a stationary observer. The point of the light-clock derivation is that since the speed of light c is accepted as constant as measured in both reference frames, the value of time elapsed between “tics" of the stationary clock and between “tics" of the moving light clock is not the same. But you called both of these times t in your derivation. Based on this, you calculated that the moving electron would have a transverse radius Rv = Ro/gamma .  But by relativistic time dilation (which is what is actually derived in the light-clock thought experiment), the value of the second t in your derivation , as measured for the moving light-clock, should have been t’ = gamma t ,  due to relativistic time dilation for a moving electron as seen by a stationary observer.  If you put t’ = t/gamma into your equation instead of putting the same t for both times, you will find that you get Rv= Ro instead of the value Rv=Ro/gamma that you found. In other words, the light clock (and your particle) does NOT contract in the direction perpendicular to the direction of motion of the particle. Special relativity predicts no relativistic length contraction perpendicular to the direction of motion of an object.
>>>> 
>>>>     You will see in my attached SPIE article “Electrons are spin-1/2 charged photons generation the de Broglie wavelength” that to get the change in the radius of the trajectory of the moving double-looping photon, you need to take into account that the moving electron is associated with a helically circulating photon whose frequency f is proportional to the total energy E=gamma mc^2  of the moving electron:  hf = gamma mc^2 . The corresponding wavelength of this higher energy photon along its trajectory is easily found to be lambda = h/(gamma mc) .  When this wavelength and frequency for the higher energy helically-moving photon are taken into account, the radius of the trajectory of the moving photon is found to decrease as Ro/gamma^2 as the speed of the electron increases. Now, the actual total radius of the helically circulating photon may decrease as Ro/gamma with increasing electron velocity, but this is a different story.
>>>> 
>>>>   The second significant error I pointed out to you before is that, near the end of your article, when using the relativistic energy-momentum equation (bottom of page 13), you add energies using the Pythagorean triangle: resting energy hFo + kinetic energy hFke = total electron energy hFv. But energies are scalar quantities and don’t add vectorially by the Pythagorean theorem. So the frequency Fke for your frequency corresponding to the kinetic energy of the moving electron has no physical meaning, and so to derive the de Broglie wavelength lambdaKE  from this  FrequencyKE has no physical meaning either.
>>>> 
>>>>    A better approach, as I show in my article, is to interpret the electron's relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4  as corresponding to the vector relationship of three MOMENTA: the transverse momentum of the circling photon mc in a resting electron, plus the longitudinal momentum of the linearly moving electron p=gamma mv, to give the total momentum P of these two momentum components, where P= E/c and E is the total energy of the helically moving charged photon forming the relativistically moving electron, which equals the total energy E of the moving relativistic electron. This momentum addition DOES corresponding to the Pythagorean theorem: P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2  and to the relativistic energy-momentum equation. The de Broglie wavelength of the moving electron is derived from the wave vector K corresponding to the total momentum P of the helically-moving higher energy charged photon, since this wave vector K has a component k=K cos (theta)=K v/c  along the longitudinal axis of the helical trajectory of the circulating charged photon. It is this longitudinal component of the higher energy helically moving photon that generates the relativistic de Broglie wavelength.
>>>> 
>>>>     with best regards,
>>>>          Richard
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> <electrons are spin one half charged photons generating de Broglie wavelength SPIE copy.pdf>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 5:00 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Chip,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	Regarding your comments, you will see from the book I sent you and my earlier paper on the proposal of an electron being a photon of the appropriate energy making two revolutions within its wavelength, it is essentially the same model as the Williamson and van der Mark. I was unaware of their work when I wrote my paper and reference and acknowledge it now. In that paper you will see a derivation for E = mc^2, in which energy is the photon travelling in a straight line and mass is the same photon making two revolutions within its wavelength. Experiment is reality. So far I am unaware of any experiment that separate those three masses, inertial, gravitational and electromagnetic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	That same paper shows that the moving particle will subject the electron to the special relativity corrections of mass, length and time with velocity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	You will also see that I suggested the reason a photon could travel in a circle was because it continually emitted and absorbed "virtual" photons, giving it the property of electric charge. My use of "virtual" is different from that used in QED, where they use "virtual" to indicate photons that are exchanged during electric interactions. For the rest of this presentation I will call them field photons because they are responsible for generating the electric field. I did not calculate a value for the unit electrical charge e because I required an unknown constant. In that case the constant may well stay as e. The rest mass of an electron, when it is not affected by an electric or magnetic field, includes the field photons being emitted and absorbed. When they are influenced by an electric field they pick up or lose a photon, changing their mass and hence velocity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	As Richard G pointed out, my calculation for the magnetic field was in error. It is suggested that the magnetic field can be explained by a combination of the rotating charge and the residual magnetic field from the direction of the photon's rotation. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	Since then, John and Martin have written a paper in which they indicate there is a mathematical reason for the photon to rotate in a circle. I believe these effects are not mutually exclusive. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	As far as i am concerned, the rotating photon structure of all matter is the reason for the special relativity corrections. As far as general relativity is concerned, space-time distortion is nothing more than the effect of gravity upon the mass of a photon m = hnu/c^2. Flat Minkowski space-time is when a photon is unchanged as it moves through that space. Curved Minkowski space-time is when gravity changes the direction and/or frequency of a photon. I have written a little about that in:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013081410504275.pdf <http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013081410504275.pdf>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	IMHO, photons are responsible for everything. They are energy and mass, related through E = mc^2 and the rotating photon structure of matter. They generate the electric and magnetic fields and are responsible for the special and general relativity corrections. That is why it is so important to understand the structure of the photon and what I believed was the purpose of this discussion group. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Vivian Robinson.
>>>>> 
>>>>> PS	A copy of my electron paper, sent for the benefit of new participants is in the following email.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 02/06/2016, at 12:09 AM, "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear John Williamson and Martin van der Mark
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Your 1997 paper on the electron may have had a much greater influence than you thought.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> The aspect of this which I would like to address is the simple premise that matter is made from confined light-speed energy.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> If this is true then there is only one form of “relativity” which can be supported.
>>>>>> The consequences of matter being comprised of confined light-speed energy lead to inescapable conclusions regarding “relativity”.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Are there comments from the group?
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Chip
>>>>>>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160606/bfc1b1cf/attachment.htm>