[General] Photon cycle rate in moving particle - faster or slower?? - answered.

John Williamson John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
Thu Jun 23 18:42:09 PDT 2016


Hello Grahame (and everyone),

I think your (and Richards) attendance to detail and to chasing down the consequences of any given model are the hallmarks of true scientific endeavor. Hats off to both of you!  I think this work is also going to lead to useful outcomes for both yourselves and for the group, though perhaps not to the ones both of you envisage at the moment.
I respect both of you and realize you, as are most in the group, are fully competent in the SR as taught in the textbooks, but theirin, indeed lies the problem.
Briefly, Richard you are wrong (if that is what you said – which I am not sure of looking at it), that the cycle rate should speed up and the frequency go up. At least you would have been wrong if you had said it. What happens (experimentally) is the (apparent) frequency observed goes up as the (apparent) clock rate goes down. I say “apparent” because, of course, for the electron in its own frame absolutely nothing has happened. Proper relativity is about proper perspective.

Grahame, you ask for a reference for Richard’s statement that electron continues to perform a full (double) loop if viewed from another frame.  That would be me, Martin and experiment. Firstly me and Martin in our 1997 paper. Secondly me in the 2015 SPIE paper where I derive the gamma factor (which is just an average behavior, however enshrined it has become amongst the multitude of the “followers”) from the proper underlying energetic transformations. Thirdly Martin and I, in a paper under construction at the moment (it is about the third down our list), where we (mostly Martin) go properly into the mathematics of the transformations at the detailed underlying level.
In the second reference I cannot claim priority. I have seen papers where others mention this result in passing as well (one by Basil Hiley, He sent me a pile recently and I cannot remember which one). I have not chased down the original reference (which he does not give), but it is pretty sure to be Einstein at root. This does not matter, it is a simple enough derivation. If anyone has enough energy to chase it down (or just knows it!)  please send me the reference. Remember, Einstein was trying to explain his underlying thinking in ways simple enough for the folk of the time to begin to understand. Unfortunately as is often the case, some of the grossly simplified stuff ends up as Canon.
Also you say that de Broglie (one of my heroes too), was starting from the canon of SR. Not so. Remember the time! This was a decade before the letter made famous before Michael Gove brought it up. Relativity was far from accepted at the time. De Broglies own work on this was labeled “the French madness” at the time. De Broglie started from the puzzling point of experiment that the frequency increased relativistically as the ticking clock slowed. Puzzling indeed. Also the de Broglie thesis (first translated by one of us, Al Kraklauer), is a reference for Richard’s statement-the original one.
Forget about me and Martin though (and even the sainted de Broglie), lets go for experiment…
Independent of model, electrons are self-sustaining oscillations of some sort. They oscillate back and forth, staying, on average, in the same place in their own frame. The picture is electron (like Ourobouros) bites it own tail. It should not be the case that merely observing it from some other frame should cause it to come undone, and indeed fast-moving electrons are no more observed to come to bits than slow moving ones. Conclusion: if it goes round and round in one frame, it goes round and round in all frames.
Now introduce a model. Model it as going round and round at lightspeed. Can one make this consistent? Some versions of relativity get this right. If one has a specific version of relativity with extra constraints (such as being relative to an absolute frame) and that throws up problems then that is not a problem for experiment, but for the model. Looking at the law of the proportionality of frequency with energy (remember this pre-dates relativity), one is led to conclude that the elements travelling towards you in the oscillation will be blue shifted, those away red-shifted (see our 1997 paper). Now looking at such a process properly (relativisticall) throws up an interesting relation. That is that another oscillation appears, as a kind of beat, between the red-shifted and blue shifted parts. Martin and I realized this during a discussion during the first few days of our double loop electron model (itself based on an older (daft and wrong!) model of mine. Now Martin is good at both maths and physics (however much he protests) and from this he derived the relation (the de Broglie Harmony of Phases), overnight one night in 1991. Applying the linearity of wave addition observed in experiment and enshrined in Maxwell, one should see another (beat-like) wave appear. It turns out this has the characteristics of the de Broglie wave. Now we were very excited about this at the time, and we thought for years that this was one of our original results. It was pointed out to us sometime before 1994, by Ulrich Enz (the father of the “soliton” – he of the Mexican hat potential way before Higgs) that de Broglie had done this first (as indeed he had!). There is no reference to this in our 1991 (unpublished) paper, but is in the 1994 (unpublished) one and in the 1997 (published) one. A proper explanation will really have to wait until Martin and I can first find time to finish our “division” paper and our individual papers on our own version of the extension to electromagnesim, then we will need to make time to get onto this one.
It is always a problem if one starts from an average behavior and then argues, as though this were Canon, to a detailed dynamical one. This is true of quantum mechanics, where one can begin from the uncertainty principle (never was a “principle” less of a principal – the clue is in the name) and come up with lots of conclusions that are utter bullshit (I will not give any references!). Likewise, starting with an average property, such as gamma, and then applying this to the detailed underlying dynamics of light (from which gamma itself should be derived) is also going to lead to contradictions in the detail. The problem here lies not in nature, but in the analysis of nature. If you want to understand the ends you should not begin in the middle.
The moral is that SR (as taught in the textbooks) should not be taken as a starting point (you are completely right in this Grahame), but needs to be understood at a deeper level if one is not going to get into conceptual problems. The same goes for quantum mechanics. One needs to derive the uncertainty principle, not start from it. I think I understand how to derive both (this could be an illusion!) on the basis of the linearity of light (you are right Chandra!) but this is actually pretty challenging and quite subtle (Martin and I have been refining this for years) and I have so little time to try to explain it properly (have had only two proper weeks this year so far!). I refer you to the references above for more detail, though you will have to wait for our paper for better – as I have said..
Anyway – must get back to the grind. Turns out the admin have failed (very publically) to add three numbers together from three spreadsheets of results – one out of 18 one out of 22 and a third out of 60 – and come up with a proper number out of 100. For some reason this has now become my problem. I now have to come up with a method to sort this out on a case by case basis for 400 first-year students. Deep joy!
Talk to you sometime next month when (hopefully) I come out of this ongoing nightmare.
Regards, John. W.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 7:52 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Phil Butler; Anthony Booth; Stephen Leary; Mark, Martin van der; Solomon Freer
Subject: Re: [General] Photon cycle rate in moving particle - faster or slower??

Hello Grahame,

   Some of the empirical evidence that is consistent with the relativistically-moving spin-1/2 charged photon model of the electron, that you asked fort, is indicated below. You are right that a lateral decrease in the size of an electron with increasing speed raises questions about relativity, which is fine. But facts are facts, and need explaining. Maybe we can make some progress here to further clarify these issues, as John W, Alexander, Martin, Vivian, Chip and yourself among others, have already contributed to.

1) The model explains the origin of the inertial mass m of the resting electron as due to the time rate of change of the momentum mc of the circulating photon having circulating energy Eo=mc^2 (other circling-photon models can also explain this), according to Newton’s 2nd law F=dp/dt = ma .

2) The model explains the origin of the inertial mass gamma m of a moving electron in the same way, as the time rate of change of the proposed circulating total electron momentum P=gamma mc of the helically moving spin-1/2 charged photon in my model, having the indicated increased frequency f=gamma mc^2/h and decreased wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc)  This empirical “transverse" inertial mass gamma m of a particle works in relativistic kinematics (for example in circular particle accelerators) whether you call it inertial mass or not). The relativistic kinematics “longitudinal” inertial mass gamma^3 m of a linearly accelerated electron is also consistent with the model.

3) The model explains the underlying nature of the experimentally-based (and very useful) relativistic energy-momentum equation for a particle: E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4  , as the relation between the internal circulating momentum mc of a particle’s circulating charged photon, the external momentum p=gamma mv of the moving particle (composed of a circulating charged photon), and the total momentum P=E/c= gamma mc of the moving particle’s helically moving charged photon , where P is the vector sum of the transverse internal momentum mc and the longitudinal external momentum gamma mv of the particle given by the Pythagorean theorem (since the momenta mc and gamma mv are at right angles:  P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2 .

4) The model gives a new derivation of the electron’s relativistic de Broglie wavelength Ldb= h/(gamma mv) ,  derived from the longitudinal component of the wave vector K of the helically-moving charged photon of momentum P= h/(gamma mc) = hbar K.

5) The model explains (at least partially) the very small size of the electron (less than 10^-18 m) measured in high energy electron scattering experiments at around 30GeV, since the radius of the helical trajectory of the spin-1/2 charged photon in a relativistic electron falls in the model as (hbar/2mc) x 1/gamma^2  with increasing electron speed v.

The above results from the model are all explained, with mathematical derivations, in my articles below. Other related articles are at https://santarosa.academia.edu/RichardGauthier .

1) https://www.academia.edu/25641654/A_New_Derivation_of_Eo_mc_2_Explains_a_Particles_Inertia
2) https://www.academia.edu/25599166/Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia_and_Relativistic_Energy_Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin_Charged_Photon_Electron_Model  and
3) https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength  (SPIE August 2015 article)

with best regards,
     Richard




On Jun 22, 2016, at 3:37 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com<mailto:grahame at starweave.com>> wrote:

Hi Richard,

I'm not sure where you found your empirical evidence that "The helically-moving charged  photon composing the recoiling electron would continue to make two full helical loops for each wavelength (as in a resting electron) but at a higher looping frequency", I'd be very interested to see that.  Or is it just a supposition based on SR frame symmetry?

Either way it seems to me that this proposal creates a major problem for SR (and for the established empirical evidence): if the formative energy of a particle is circulating faster in a moving particle, then the effects of that energy flow (i.e. time effects within the particle, such as particle decay - which can ONLY be down to internal energy flow) will occur *faster* in a moving particle than in a static one; this appears to be totally contrary to observed fact, for example in fast-moving muons.  [I appreciate that this evidence relates to muons and you're talking about electrons - but if completely different principles apply in those two elementary particles I think we'll need an explanation for why - and some empirical evidence].

Best regards,
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Gauthier<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
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: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:43 AM
Subject: Re: [General] PS: Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Hi John D,

   In Compton scattering, the wavelength of the incoming photon increases, not decreases, as the photon is scattered by the electron. The energy lost by the Compton-scattered x-ray photon is gained by the recoiling electron. The internal wavelength of the circulating spin-1/2 charged photon composing the recoiling electron would decrease corresponding to the increased energy of the recoiling electron. The helically-moving charged  photon composing the recoiling electron would continue to make two full helical loops for each wavelength (as in a resting electron) but at a higher looping frequency, corresponding to the shorter wavelength distance along the helix for two helical loops..

       Richard

_______________________________________________
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">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160624/3e51bb2b/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list