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

Thu Jun 16 18:00:05 PDT 2016

Hi John and Grahame and others,

   I’m looking forward to further discussions about relativity also. But I think we should begin with what are established experimental facts related to relativity and particles, whether we call them facts of special relativity or just facts. (And I understand that even facts don’t exist in a theoretical vacuum.) For example, an electron of mass m and velocity v has factual momentum p=gamma mv, whether you call this its relativistic momentum or just its momentum. (There are quantum-theory-related facts also.) Similarly, the total factual energy E of a moving free electron is E=gamma mc^2 whether you call this the total relativistic energy of the electron, or just its total energy. And the factual energy and inertial mass relationship Eo=mc^2 of a resting electron may not depend on relativity at all. These dynamical facts and relationships are used to guide electrons, protons etc. around or along accelerators every day. Similarly, the useful energy-momentum equation of an electron E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 is also an experimental factual relationship. I don’t think anyone here is trying to deny these experimental factual relationships. To the limit of current experimental accuracy they are correct expressions. Of course there is no harm in either challenging or trying to explain these factual relations. These factual relations (some containing gamma) can then be helpful in developing theoretical models of electrons, photons or other particles, such as circulating-photon models of the electron. This can hopefully lead to new experimental facts and technological applications as well as deeper understandings, including deeper understandings about space and time, matter and energy.

    Richard

> On Jun 16, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi John,
>  
> Good to be in touch again, I always enjoy our discussions.
> In that respect I'm of course most interested in your observations below and hope to respond to them in due course (I see a lot of common ground there - and some interesting debate!).  At the present time, though, my thoughts on this subject are totally focused.  It's all too easy to get caught up in the esoterica of how one expresses this or that aspect of Special Relativity and the implications for this, that or the other; my experience of this is that one gets enmeshed in a web of alternate views, even 'alternate realities', where nothing absolutely definitive can be said to definitely hold.  This sort of discussion can be very enlivening - but at the moment I'm looking at a very specific (and potentially vitally important) issue.
>  
> So, as is my nature, it's back to first principles.  For me the fundamental question is: is there ANY evidence for Special Relativity as an objective truth?  If there isn't, then no amount of batting hypotheticals back and forth amounts to a hill of beans.  Hence my request to have any errors pointed out - very specifically in terms of my logic and my maths relating to: Fizeau's Experiment (www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php <http://www.transfinitemind.com/fizeau.php>); Michelson & Morley's Experiment (www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php <http://www.transfinitemind.com/michelsonmorley.php>); and Maxwell's Equations (www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php <http://www.transfinitemind.com/maxwell.php>); also more broadly my reasoning on SR 'evidence' generally, as at www.transfinitemind.com/SR..php <http://www.transfinitemind.com/SR.php> ..
>  
> Unless my reasoning and/or maths in these pieces - specifically in 'Fizeau', 'Maxwell' and 'M&M' - is fundamentally wrong, then, whatever one wishes to say about deeper implications of the physics involved, the origins of SR and its continuing uncritical acceptance (in most quarters, at least) are based on a fallacy (or, more accurately, a number of fallacies).  This means that theories based on SR as an objective cosmic reality are likewise based on a fallacy.  They may produce findings in line with observation - but then of course they would, if SR is in fact not an objective reality but the consequence of subjective experience (which you hint at as a possibility in your text below).  More importantly, we will FAIL to discover possibly extremely valuable aspects of reality that can only be experienced by stepping outside that illusion.  Consider, for example, the fact of electromagnetic radiation itself: visible light was identified as such - but we could have gone on forever thinking that visible light was the whole story (in which case experiments based solely on visible light would have 'proved' that we were right).  A very substantial proportion of the technology that we depend on today would not exist.
>  
> So I'd be happy to chat about things like whether photon-formed particles in motion consist of two complete revolutions (and what this might mean, and from whose point of view) once I have this issue nailed down: IS IT, or IS IT NOT the case that the observations on which SR are founded, and on which basis it continues to be regarded as objective fact, can actually be fully explained without ANY NEED to invoke either of the two postulates of SR?  It appears to me that those two postulates are totally redundant to explanation of those observations - and so the case for SR as a cosmic truth evaporates.
>  
> If the case for SR is fallacious then we're into a rather different ball game from the one currently being played out in the global physics arena.  It's as well that we know that sooner rather than later, if we're to develop effective strategies for issues facing our species and our planet.
>  
> Cheers,
> Grahame
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: John Williamson <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> Cc: Phil Butler <mailto:phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz> ; Anthony Booth <mailto:abooth at ieee.org> ; Stephen Leary <mailto:sleary at vavi.co.uk> ; Mark,Martin van der <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> ; Solomon Freer <mailto:slf at unsw.edu.au>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 12:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: [General] PS: Matter comprised of light-speed energy
>> 
>>  
>> 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:
>> 
>> ... etc
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160616/8d35cf34/attachment.htm>