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

[John Williamson]

Hello Grahame,

Good to see you on another forum. Welcome indeed!

Have seen much of (and enjoyed) your work in the past, I think you are spot on in many respects, wrong in others, and completely crazy elsewhere (but in a good way!). You should fit right in!

It is worth noting, for your information, that certain folk, Martin van der Mark and Stephen Leary amongst them, have signed themselves off this group - so you will need to include them separately if you want to reach them. Others who perhaps should be in the group, such as Phil Butler, never were (though Niels Gresnigt is).

I note that you and Viv have had a discussion on the nature of "mass". There has been a lot of this in the past on this forum - mostly arguments about the meanings of words. It has been this, in part, that has put some folk off to the extent that they have jumped out. Looking at your discussion there it seems to me mostly semantics as well. You both agree real photons are rest-mass less. You both agree they carry energy-momentum. Pretty much the only thing you disagree on is what the meaning of “mass” should be. I agree! I disagree too! Professional high energy physicists avoid this by talking about “the 4-momentum transfer squared”. This is always positive for real photons (and equal to the square of E/c in the centre of momentum frame). It may be positive (repulsive) or negative (attractive) for virtual (as opposed to real) photons.

On relativity I was going to ask you if you had seen my paper with the derivation of the Einstein Gamma from a localised photon model, but on trying to catch up a bit (I have been snowed under with exams, marking and the associated crap that comes with it for a couple of months) I came across your email of apr25, where I see you have. Interesting comments there but the derivation does not depend only on the localised photon model - it goes deeper. The underlying effect, and the reason for the appearance (and hence derivation) of special relativity, depends on the reciprocal relation of "to" and "fro". The maths is the same as that leading to equation 21, but the underlying symmetry is the linear nature of energy and the linear nature of "field". There is, further, no asymmetry between the spatial and the temporal (except for the sign in the metric, the 3D nature and the handedness of course) - so I do not see why you think there is. The relativistic wave-function scales properly in both space and time, with only the variation of the single factor R.  Sounds as though there is an interesting discussion to be had there at some point.

I agree that we should be deriving relativity, not starting with it as an axiom. Einstein himself was far more flexible and deeper on this than the frozen version in current standard textbooks would suggest. Indeed he would have been horrified to be set up as an AUTHORITY! Especially when the "authorised" version corresponds just a small subset of his thinking.

I think I understand the “why” of relativity (although this could be an illusion!) and have tried to explain this several times and from several perspectives - but it is hard. I am not the only one though, Carver Meade certainly gets it, Einstein did (surprise!) wheller and FEynman did, Basil Hiley does (I've seen a similar use of his to mine). Not sure what the proepr provenance is - most likely Einstein himself. Proper relativity has little or nothing to do with the “speed of light” per se. Light has a (local) speed. Call it “1”. Everything else scales from this. THe fact that it is measured everywhere and in every frame to have the same value is more a property of the measurement equipment scaling in the same way as that measured, as I have said before. There is a form between space and time – the metric where the 1D part (call it time) has the opposite sign to the 3D part (call it space). The sign difference is necessary to allow relativistic waves and relativistic locality. No sign difference no waves, no us. The absolute sign of space, by the way, is not neutral, as is widely thought. It must be negative to retain the consistencies of (Lorentz) rotations of rotations, as first pointed out by Butler. Phil Butler  and others (Martin and me as well) produced a paper on this long ago – which was never published.  Ho hum. The sign of the 3D part has implications for the intrinsic handedness of the universe (as should be obvious). There is evidence that we have got it wrong (Hamilton, Maxwell and 3D computer gamers use a left-handed system). To get a full understanding one needs to look at all velocities symmetrically about the speed of light (down to zero and up to “infinity”). This is bound up with the “interaction with the absorber” stuff that I thought of talking about last August – though Carver Meade had done a good job in his keynote talk a couple of years before.

Speaking of relativity in its standard form and your request to have any errors pointed out - my pleasure. You are, if not wrong, at least not quite right yourself in certain respects on this (not your fault - many are! It comes from the (poor) explanation of what is going on in standard textbooks). Viv has a saying "If I am wrong I want to be the first to know. That goes for me too - and I know it goes for you as well so I will try to help!

Here is one example (between the ****'s) from your "tail" with Viv and Richard:

***********
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.

I see what you mean here. Indeed there is a problem with defining start and end “points” in a moving frame. This is, however, the point. One should not wish to do this, as it has little meaning. Particle consistency in terms of a resonant- self-sustaining oscillation, requires a resonant, smooth, harmonic description in all possible frames, not just the rest frame. If a particle is a double-loop in one frame, it must be a double-loop in all frames – even if apparent (projected!) space and time must “bend” to accommodate this then so be it. This must be secondary, not primary. This does not mean, for the particle, that space and time are actually contracting or dilating – just that it seems that way from another frame. These elementary objects are the primary ruler-clocks with which we measure every aspect of space and time.

 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.

I agree that Viv is just putting this in – however if you want to describe this consistently in terms of lengths and times then something like this must happen. My own view is that space-space is the wrong space to view this in and one should use bi-vector space here and then make a projection (a divsison). To do this one has to understand how to do inversions  properly in a relativistic algebra (not as trivial as it sounds – as a moments thought will reveal). Martin and I have been working on this for some time and we are in the course of writing a Martin-John paper about it.

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.

Hmm, this is and is not so. If the particle would be a rigid body (made of what?) that did conform to the simple precepts of SR as a given – you would be right. However, given that it is made of light you are incorrect. Field transforms ONLY perpendicular to a boost and NOT parallel to it as do vector quantities. It is a VERY BIG MISTAKE to try to apply simple (gamma!) relativity to non-vector quantities. That is, an analysis of relativity at a deeper level DOES conform, at least in some respects, to what Viv is doing here. Viv knows it must scale laterally – physically, but it is not quite kosher the way he has done introduced it.

By the way the momentum density, like the field is a bi-vector object. Integral energy-momentum then scales similarly, but not in precisely the same way as a simple 4-vector. This has to do with the proper properties of inversion (and hence projection). Martin and I are busy writing a paper on this at the moment. The moral is that seeing the (double looped) rotation as a simple rigid body rotation in normal space is too simple and analyses on this basis should not be taken too seriously, whether they “agree” with simple SR or “contradict” it.

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?

Molecular sizes have little to do with the free electron size, but are orders of magnitude larger (of the order of their de Broglie, rather than Compton wavelength). Also the velocities of orbitals are anyway low enough that the effect is small. This is not to say they are not there – and relativistic corrections are important – they do affect the molecular bonding – just not a lot.  The size of the electron (or anything else) is unaffected by how we view it.

I see strong reasons why radius of photon path would NOT change with speed of particle.

What? Even a classical rotor would squash to an apparent ellipse. Obviously it does not change in the frame of the particle. Is this what you mean?

Look, lengths (apparently) do scale with frame. Experimentally. Photons scale with energy. High energy photons are smaller than low energy ones. E = h nu =  hf/lambda. If you want to project this to (your) space – you will see an apparent shrinkage with increasing energy. This is the point. Not that it has shrunk in its space but that RELATIVE to you it looks small. It is not that the radius of the photon path has changed – the photon does not have a linear radius. It may rotate, but it does not corkscrew. It is that the characteristic length – if that is what you measure – has changed. That intrinsic “length” is not necessarily a length in vector metres but a length in bi-vector metres or, more properly scalar metres (radius of curvature and curvature are properly expressed as ratios – especially at lightspeed). One needs to project these to get a vector length. Project it, properly, onto your space. Projected, for a localised photon, one half scales as R, the other as 1/R (as in Martin and my 1997 paper and as in the discussion leading up to eq 21 in my paper discussed earlier). As an observer you only “see” the reduced half – the other still recedes from you at lightspeed.


***********

Hmm I feel as though I’m repeating myself in much of the above yet again … I’m afraid that email discussions do not really make the kind of progress I would like. It would be far better if those of us with an interest in the electron as a localised photon could get together and have a proper workshop on it. That would progress things a very great deal more rapidly. I wonder if there is any chance of that this summer? There are quite a few of us in the locality (Britain, Holland, Belgium) more in the States, but scattered. Provided we avoid dates around those of the Open Golf (14th to 17th July), there is plenty and varied accommodation in my home town of Troon.  Anyone fancy an August Workshop on particles as localised electro-magnetism in one of the most beautiful countries on Earth?

Gotta go … still dealing with the aftermath of exams.

Have another thing I’ve been working on for Michael Mercury on astrophysical tests of free pivot which I may post to the group as well later.

Regards, John.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:52 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: [General] PS: Matter comprised of light-speed energy

PS

Sincere apologies to all for sending that last email with such a long 'tail' on it.
That's not my normal practice.  I regret I was distracted as I was preparing to send that one and neglected to clip it as I usually do.

Best regards,
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr Grahame Blackwell<mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Hi Chip et al,
[Thanks, Prof Chandra, ... etc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160616/fbdf23c8/attachment.htm>