[General] Fwd: Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Fri Jun 10 06:38:39 PDT 2016

Hello Chandra,
   I would like to request that Dr. Grahame Blackwell be added (he indicated this desire for this in his email below)  to our “Nature of Light and Particles” e-list. He is well known to several of us, and as you can see from his below post, he has already made a significant contribution to one of the main topics of our group. I hope that he will be invited to participate in our next SPIE conference as well.
     with best regards,
            Richard

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Dr Grahame Blackwell" <grahame at starweave.com>
> Subject: Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy
> Date: June 10, 2016 at 5:35:19 AM PDT
> To: "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> Cc: <viv at universephysics.com>
> 
> Hi Richard,
>  
> Thanks indeed for forwarding Viv Robinson's paper on to me.  I found a great deal in it that I would agree with, indeed as you say his model is similar to mine in various respects.
>  
> As you know, my primary concern with this 'cyclic-photon' view of electron structure (which must by now surely be self-evident in principle to anyone who takes the trouble to consider it) relates to its consequences in respect of Special Relativity - specifically, it fully explains ALL of the experimentally verified findings of SR (note that I do not include what I would consider deeply questionable inferences from those 'gold standard' findings).  For this reason I haven't unravelled all the details of spin, momentum etc in this paper - though again I see a lot in there that I find eminently acceptable.
>  
> Just a couple of things that I noted that I have to question.  First, on p.4 Vivian quotes AE: "radiation conveys inertia between emitting and absorbing bodies" - then states: "Einstein's above-mentioned statement shows he believed photons have mass"; he goes further than this and refers to this idea (photons have mass) as "Einstein's postulate".  For me this is a non-sequitur, putting words in Einstein's mouth that (as far as I know) he never uttered.  For something to CONVEY a characteristic it doesn't need to HAVE that characteristic itself.  For example, radio waves convey sound between source and destination - but they do most assuredly NOT themselves consist of longitudinal pressure waves.
>  
> This is not a trivial point, it goes to the very heart of 'what IS mass / what is inertia?' - a subject that you and I have discussed recently.  My perception of inertial mass, backed up by careful consideration of what's happening when a particle changes its velocity, is that it's a property of that closed-loop energy structure, not applicable to a free-flying photon - but transferable BY that free-flying photon between two of those closed-loop structures.  (Totally analogous to that radio wave).
>  
> My other point relating to Vivian's paper is in respect of what appears to me to be an assumption for which there is no evidence: namely that, just because a static particle is formed from exactly two circuits per wavelength of its formative photon, a moving particle will likewise consist of exactly a double-loop.  This appears in the four lines of algebra leading up to equation 7, which itself defines a reduced diameter for a particle on the move.  It seems to be an attempt to conform with precepts of SR - but leads to a conclusion that is itself at variance with SR, namely a change in dimension orthogonal to direction of motion.  There seems to be a suggestion that this only affects the particle, not the wider structure, but it's not apparent why that should be so: would not a change in electron diameter have an impact on electromagnetic molecular bonding - if not, why not?  I see strong reasons why radius of photon path would NOT change with speed of particle.
>  
> For my part I've continued to add to what I consider to be compelling reasons to question century-old entrenched positions re Special Relativity.  You know that I've derived clear mathematical rationales for ALL verified findings of SR directly from the 'cyclic photon' model, however I don't ask people simply to accept my findings against that 100-year legacy.  Rather, I have posted what I consider absolutely compelling reasons for seriously questioning three of the most 'robust' arguments for SR: Fizeau's experiment; Maxwell's equations (frame independence thereof); Michelson & Morley's experiment.  If ANYONE can take the few minutes required to read those three 1-page posts (with minimal maths, mostly simple logical reasoning) and then STILL believe that ANY of those can be considered serious evidence for SR, I'd be most interested to hear why.
>  
> Those posts can be found at:
> www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php <http://www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php>
> www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php <http://www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php>
> www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php <http://www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php>
>  
> A more detailed rationale for seriously questioning SR as a true model of reality can be seen at:
> www.transfinitemind.com/SR..php <http://www.transfinitemind.com/SR.php>
>  
> It goes without saying that, unless all of thes pieces can be effectively refuted, physics research today is in a real sense heading down a blind alley.
>  
> I'd be glad, Richard, if you could share this with others.  I'd also be pleased to be able to myself share with the group that you refer to, if that's ok with you & them.
>  
> Thanks,
> Grahame
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: Richard Gauthier <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> To: Dr Grahame Blackwell <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 5:10 AM
>> Subject: Fwd: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy
>> 
>> Hello Grahame,
>>     I’m forwarding to you a copy of Vivian Robinson’s double-loop electron model article (attached at the end), with some recent comments on it in the “nature of light and particles” discussion group. I don’t know if you’ve read Vivian’s article, but his approach is somewhat similar to yours. I would be interested in seeing any comments you might have on it, and would pass them along to Vivian and the group if you agreed.
>>       all the best,
>>            Richard
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>>
>>> Subject: Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy
>>> Date: June 7, 2016 at 10:36:34 AM PDT
>>> To: Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>>
>>> Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>> 
>>> Hello Vivian,
>>> 
>>>    Again, thank you for your further explanations. Unfortunately, you still do not seem to have realized, and therefore do not accept, that you incorrectly derived the de Broglie wavelength Ldb = h/(gamma m v) from your electron model. Since you knew the correct de Broglie wavelength formula in advance, it is understandable that you accepted your faulty derivation when it seemed to give the “right answer”. This can be a lesson for all of us.  Let me be more specific. On p 13 in the middle right-hand column of your article (attached below for others' convenience) you write: 
>>> 
>>> The rotational component of the electron at rest is unavailable for any interaction, except for exchanging photons in an electromagnetic interaction. That leaves only the translational component of the moving electron’s electromagnetic field available for interaction. That is the wavelength of its kinetic energy. However the electron is entirely composed of an electromagnetic wave. Its total energy is E=  hfv. Its rest energy is hf0. The kinetic energy component of the electromagnetic field, pc, is given by  E sin (theta)= hfv sin (theta) = pc =  hfke ..
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Summarizing, you derived the “kinetic energy component of the electromagnetic field, pc" from the relativistic energy-momentum triangle as KE = pc =  hfke (as you labeled the vertical side of the  triangle in fig. 13) . Then you write:  
>>> 
>>> Substituting c/lambdaKE  for fKE and simplifying yields  pc =  hc/lambdaKE   where lambdaKE  is the component wavelength of the electromagnetic oscillation that is the electron, in the direction of its travel, namely lambdaKE = h/p  which is the expression for the de Broglie wavelength. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> But the correct expression for the relativistic kinetic energy KE of a particle is KE= (gamma-1)mc^2  which is NOT equal to pc , which equals pc=(gamma mv)c or pc=gamma mvc . It is OK to set KE=hfke    but this means that fke =KE/h = [ (gamma-1)(mc^2) ] /h .  Combining this expression for fke with c/(lambdaKE ) = fKE    or   lambdaKE  = c/ fKE      gives
>>> 
>>> lambdaKE  = c/ fKE  =   c/(KE/h)   =   c/  [(gamma-1)(mc^2)] / h
>>> 
>>> lambdaKE  =    h/(gamma-1)(mc)    
>>> 
>>> which is not at all what you obtained: lambdaKE  =  h/p ,  when you incorrectly set KE = hfKE equal to pc . So whatever  lambdaKE  is (you call it the wavelength of the electron’s kinetic energy), it is NOT the de Broglie wavelength.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    So your electron model unfortunately does not give a correct derivation of the electron's de Broglie wavelength formula, due to a mis-interpretation of the relativistic energy-momentum equation’s “right triangle”. This led you to incorrectly equate two different quantities: pc and KE of a moving electron, resulting in your incorrect derivation of the de Broglie wavelength. One can reasonably conclude that the other relativistic mathematical derivations in your model, which you claim are consistent with known experimental properties of the electron, should be carefully checked as well;  and should not be accepted by you unless they pass such checking.
>>> 
>>> with best regards, 
>>>         Richard
>>> 
>>> p.s. you might say that I’m just trying to find fault with your electron model because I have a different one. I agree, and hope you will return the favor. Everyone benefits in this way, and it hopefully speeds up the process of finding better models for the electron, photon and other fundamental particles. 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160610/693331db/attachment.htm>