[General] HA: Photon cycle rate in moving particle - faster or slower?? - answered.
Joakim Pettersson
joakimbits at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 05:25:07 PDT 2016
Hi Alex, John W, Grahame, Richard and John D,
I am so happy for your writes on this thread, it is a simple question
that gets to the roots of all thought models!
Alex brings in some already explored math from the string community,
which have a lot of expertise in how to model a very compressed space.
Particularly the x+ia dimension trick and the powerful geometry
transformations it leads to. I have just skimmed the surface of Alex'es
bag model through various Wikipedia articles but would like to share
what I see as a possible postulate for this thread as it stands right
now - if we focus on a photon/electron moving *in the spin direction* we
have here three models that all merge to the same result at near
light-speed:
A. John D described near-rest motion in 3+1 space. The photon-geometry
in the spin direction is as a thought experiment compacted to zero
(rest) or to a helical spring (motion). Gravity tension according to GR
would be infinite on the circle/spring if the photon would be
point-like, but everyone on this forum would agree that it can't be, and
on second thought would refer to (Heisenberg/Schroedinger) uncertainy in
its position leading to a gaussian-distribution and therefore appearing
more like a round doughnut ring. That is a really good starting point,
if we want to join thoughts together.
B. Alex doesn't say explicitly because time has either 0 or 2 dimensions
in the superstring theory he relates to, but usually string theorists
think from "real" space and up so I guess that is how dimensions are
interpreted here. Gravity tension in the spin direction is in Alex bag
model compressed to infinity. The photon appears as an extremely flat
(to a factor 1e-22) doughnut ring. This merges well with thinking A when
the particle is moving at near light-speed in the spin direction.
C. John W and Martin van der Mark describe fields in 3+1 real and in 3+1
inverse (momentum) space. The only stationary solution they found so far
in vacuum will appear in 3+1 real space as either (1) a completely
planar photon, (2) a doughnut-like double-turn electron/positron, (3) a
broken dough-nut-like virtual 2/3-turn quark, (4) a wormnest-like
double-turn neutron, (5) a wormnest-with-a-belly-like proton, (6), any
higher order and smaller particle constructed from the above. This also
merges well with boh A and B thinking, both at the original near-rest
and Alex'es apparently near-light-speed motion.
In summary: C needs A to understand B which could simplify the maths for
C when doing the FEM simulations of QED. The meeting point right now
cold be at light speed in the spin direction. What does happen there in
A and C, does it turn at as B?
BR/Joakim
------ Originalmeddelande ------
Från: "Burinskii A.Ya." <bur at ibrae.ac.ru>
Till: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Kopia: "Phil Butler" <phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz>; "Anthony Booth"
<abooth at ieee.org>; "Stephen Leary" <sleary at vavi.co.uk>; "Mark, Martin
van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>; "Solomon Freer"
<slf at unsw.edu.au>
Skickat: 2016-06-24 07:25:47
Ämne: [General] HA: Photon cycle rate in moving particle - faster or
slower?? - answered.
>Dear John W. and all,
>
>
>
>In connection with the discussion of date when the idea appeared,
>
>I would like to note, that I considered electron as circulating photon
>
> in 1969 and obtained the de Broglie periodicity and the relativistic
>
>behavior of mass. It was published in some abstracts of conferences
>
>about 1972.
>
>I called it geon with spin like the Wheeler geon model.
>
>It was published in 1974 in JETP, but physical interpretation was
>censured.
>
>In particular, the editor E. Lifschitz forced me to delete the words
>on zitterbewegung.
>
>It was shown that Kerr's gravity can keep photon in circular motion.
>
>So, all the next forty years I am working with the Kerr geometry and
>arrived to the Kerr's
>
>bag model, where the photon is confined like a quark in the lightlike
>circular motion.
>
>Double loop is appeared due to two-sheeted structure of the Kerr
>geometry.
>
>
>
>I am sending you the paper `Microgeon with spin', since it's difficult
>to find it now.
>
>
>
>Regards, Alex
>
>
>
>________________________________
>От: John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
>Отправлено: 24 июня 2016 г. 4:42
>Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>Копия: Phil Butler; Anthony Booth; Stephen Leary; Mark, Martin van der;
>Solomon Freer
>Тема: Re: [General] Photon cycle rate in moving particle - faster or
>slower?? - answered.
>
>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/20160624/4ee38559/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list