[General] HA: Photon cycle rate in moving particle - faster or slower?? - answered.
Joakim Pettersson
joakimbits at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 08:54:20 PDT 2016
Hi Richard,
Did you also see this dark matter in Dirac Nobel lecture 1933:
"We now make the assumptions that in the world as we know it, nearly all
the states of negative energy for the electrons are occupied, with just
one electron in each state, and that a uniform filling of all the
negative-energy states is completely un-observable to us. Further, any
unoccupied negative-energy state, being a departure from uniformity, is
observable and is just a positron."
Fraction of real to dark matter is then simply related to the entropy,
or temperature of the universe. Q.E.D. derived from QED ;-).
/joakim
------ Originalmeddelande ------
Från: "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
Till: "Joakim Pettersson" <joakimbits at gmail.com>; "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 14:33:41
Ämne: Re: [General] HA: Photon cycle rate in moving particle - faster or
slower?? - answered.
>Hello Alex,
> Thank you very much. The history of circulating-photon-based
>electron models is very interesting and complex, and I would suggest
>goes back at least to Dirac, who claimed in his Nobel lecture that the
>electron moves at light-speed (since it has eigenvalues of + c and - c
>from the Dirac equation) but is only observed experimentally to move
>at less than c due to its small amplitude and high frequency of
>vibration (which is of course the controversial zitterbewegung
>frequency). This idea is also implicit in the de Broglie-Einstein’s
>equations hf = mc^2 for a resting electron and hf = gamma mc^2 for a
>moving electron .
> I found an abstract of the Brandon Carter reference in your article
>at http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.174.1559 .
>Brandon Carter spoke at our SPIE conference “What are photons?" a few
>years ago. It would be great if he could join our discussions as well.
> Richard
>
>ABSTRACT
>The Kerr family of solutions of the Einstein and Einstein-Maxwell
>equations is the most general class of solutions known at present which
>could represent the field of a rotating neutral or electrically charged
>body in asymptotically flat space. When the charge and specific angular
>momentum are small compared with the mass, the part of the manifold
>which is stationary in the strict sense is incomplete at a Killing
>horizon. Analytically extended manifolds are constructed in order to
>remove this incompleteness. Some general methods for the analysis of
>causal behavior are described and applied. It is shown that in all
>except the spherically symmetric cases there is nontrivial causality
>violation, i.e., there are closed timelike lines which are not
>removable by taking a covering space; moreover, when the charge or
>angular momentum is so large that there are no Killing horizons, this
>causality violation is of the most flagrant possible kind in that it is
>possible to connect any event to any other by a future-directed
>timelike line. Although the symmetries provide only three constants of
>the motion, a fourth one turns out to be obtainable from the unexpected
>separability of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, with the result that the
>equations, not only of geodesics but also of charged-particle orbits,
>can be integrated completely in terms of explicit quadratures. This
>makes it possible to prove that in the extended manifolds all geodesics
>which do not reach the central ring singularities are complete, and
>also that those timelike or null geodesics which do reach the
>singularities are entirely confined to the equator, with the further
>restriction, in the charged case, that they be null with a certain
>uniquely determined direction. The physical significance of these
>results is briefly discussed.
>
>Received 29 March 1968
>DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.174.1559
>
>©1968 American Physical Society
>
>
>
>>On Jun 24, 2016, at 5:25 AM, Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>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>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>>Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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/20160624/2011782c/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list