[General] Photon cycle rate in moving particle - faster or slower?? - not answered.

[Dr Grahame Blackwell]

Hi John W,

(also Richard, Chip and any other interested parties)

 

John, I believe that we’re very much singing from the same song sheet (but with different priorities) – but I’m also absolutely certain that we’re talking at cross purposes!  To put it another way: I I’m not at all sure that you see what I’m getting at – in fact I’m sure that you don’t (and that’s my fault, for not making my point clearer).

 

[Richard, see the bottom of my text here for my response to your request re the six pages I referred to.]

 

John, can I make it totally clear that I have absolutely NO issue with findings of SR as extensively confirmed experimentally in the LHC; from my own research I would fully expect that to be the case, in fact I’d be very surprised – and more than a little concerned – if that were not the case.  Having said that, I further agree with you that “SR no longer relies just on the seminal experiments [I] quoted, but on a huge body of experiment consistent with it” – and this is where, in my view, the whole problem stems from.

 

In my latest book I consider in meticulous detail the situation of a photon scattering off an electron in motion with respect to the lab frame (Compton scattering).  I consider the mathematics of this situation from the perspective of both the lab frame and the electron’s initial ‘rest frame’, both (a) taking the principles of SR to be applicable (objective frame symmetry) and (b) regarding the lab to be static in a unique objective universal rest frame and the electron to be in motion with respect to that objective reference frame.  In the latter case I make no assumptions regarding the invariance (or otherwise) of the electron’s ‘rest mass’ in those two frames but rather consider the effects on motion of the electron as perceived in each of those frames and consider mass in that context as a factor governing the rate/degree of increase of speed in each case.

 

This analysis shows that the electron will have an apparent ‘rest mass’ in the moving frame identical to its actual rest mass in the lab frame, due to subjective factors in the moving frame.  More than this, the apparent effect on motion of this scattering event, as perceived in the frame moving with respect to the hypothetical universal rest frame, is identical to the effect on motion as determined by application of standard SR (in simple terms, the Lorentz transformation).  In other words, the situation as perceived in the initial ‘rest frame’ of the moving electron offers no clue, through observation or measurement, as to whether that frame is symmetric with the lab frame (as proposed by SR) or is in fact in a state of absolute motion with respect to a lab frame which is defined as being the unique objective universal rest frame.

 

Clearly this situation is very much simpler than those found in the LHC and similar scenarios.  However it’s equally clear that this situation is wholly scalable, in terms of numbers of particles and numbers and types of events, to those far more complex scenarios.  It’s for this reason that I say I have absolutely no issue with the reams of empirical evidence gleaned from such high-energy experiments.

 

It’s for this reason also that I say that I consider this to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution – since it’s abundantly clear that what you and most other physicists regard as an abundance of confirmatory evidence for SR is in fact no such thing.  It confirms that subjective experience of ‘relativistic’ events is fully in line with SR theory – however it does absolutely nothing to confirm that the frame symmetry central to SR (as it is generally understood) is an objective reality.  The fact that it is pretty much universally regarded as confirming objective frame symmetry is what I refer to as “where the problem stems from”.

 

John, those early experiments that I have looked at in my pdfs do something that these LHC ‘validations’ don’t: they test the fundamental premise that SR is an objective phenomenon, not just a subjective experience.  No amount of experimental data of the sort you refer to will do that, it simply reinforces the illusion – an illusion created primarily by the cyclic-photon structure of particles (as you yourself have hinted at in places).  That Illusion is aided and abetted by mutually compensating false assumptions (according to my analysis), such as the unproven assumption of reciprocity of rel. time dilation.

 

[As an aside: in my book I also consider the Hasselkamp experiment for detection of transverse Doppler effect.  It occurred to me that, given the speed of the earth through the cosmos (approx 0.001c), that speed may be detectable against a universal rest frame by arranging a Hasselkamp-type experiment in the two opposing directions – directly with and against the velocity of the earth relative to the CMB (best guess for that universal rest frame) and finding the difference.  On working through the maths in detail it became apparent that, regardless of the speed of the emitting atoms and regardless of the precision of the detection and measuring apparatus, NO effect would be detected (basically because primary Doppler shift would inevitably play a part, one way or the other, and would precisely wash out the difference in Second Order Doppler Shift).  You’ll understand why I refer to this in my book as ‘SODS Law – the quantum version’.]

One might say: “So what’s the odds?  What possible difference can it make whether observations such as those in the LHC are the consequence of frame symmetry as an objective truth or as a subjective impression – since it’s so all-pervasive?  Why should we even concern ourselves?”

 

John, it makes all the difference in the world – in the universe!  How can we seriously pursue our aspirations to travel among the stars if we have an erroneous impression of the very nature of space-time?  In particular, if we believe that FTL transfer between cosmic locations could seriously upset the causality applecart – a belief based on the (arguably erroneous) hypothesis of reciprocity of time dilation.  How can we formulate a coherent and workable model of gravitation (i.e. actually explain ‘curvature of spacetime’) based on a misapprehension that it has to conform with the dictates of frame symmetry?  Equally, how can we expand the limits of our understanding at the particle level, if those limits are themselves set by a false assumption?

 

On the subject of the young Einstein and Maxwell’s equations I’m afraid I have to disagree with you.  Not on the subject of ‘ultimate redshift’ (as highlighted by Chip), that’s a given.  I don’t know, though, how you propose that this flat-lining of that photon would be identified by that fast-moving observer: it can only be by measurement of either frequency or wavelength: if the former, I hope we’re agreed that zero/zero gives a result that can be determined by approaching that situation from sub-c speed (more on that in a moment); if the latter then one has to ask how the observer/instrument is measuring an infinite wavelength (even setting aside distance measurement when time is frozen – distance takes time to measure).

 

Thinking of approaching frequency measurement from sub-c, it’s clear from simple analysis that the photon speed will measure as c rel. to the observer for arbitrarily small c-v; i.e. there IS a photon (at measured speed c) right up to the limit – even if red-shifted to the point of oblivion.  So for arbitrarily small c-v we have a photon with arbitrarily small energy, still travelling at measured speed c.  If we take the observer right up to speed c, we cannot say that the photon no longer exists, since by slowing the observer down again (an arbitrarily small amount) that photon again becomes apparent – and the idea of a photon coming into existence out of nothing doesn’t make sense.  So we must admit the concept of a photon with measured speed c but zero energy relative to that observer.  This doesn’t require SR-type frame symmetry.

 

This is quite different from teenage Einstein’s reasoning that a lack of d/dt of field effects would lead to a lack of photon – which, if applicable in the c-speed observer, would support the concept of absolute frame symmetry.  However, my analysis dispels that argument on grounds of ‘observer time dilation to zero’.

 

Regarding Fizeau and M&M: both of these, if not explainable in conventional terms, would likewise point to absolute frame symmetry as applied in SR.  However, I have shown that (a) an explanation that fits with respect to the observer frame (not just the moving frame) must exist, even if not known; (b) in both of these cases there is a pretty straightforward explanation in ‘mechanical’ terms that require no reference to SR – and so cannot be regarded as in any way providing evidence for SR frame symmetry.

 

So, in summary:

(a) the accepted ‘evidence’ for objective frame symmetry, as applied in SR, is in fact no evidence at all;

(b) all of the phenomena attributed to SR can be fully explained without reference to frame symmetry;

(c) the symmetric Lorentz transformation is a totally valid subjective experience based on effects of motion upon particles and objects in motion relative to a unique objective universal rest state (I believe that Chip has also been trying to put this point across);

(d) there is no basis in fact for application of frame symmetry as an objective reality in scientific research;

(e) assuming objective frame symmetry on the basis of phenomena that can be traced back to subjective effects leads to assumptions of constraints and attributes of cosmic phenomena that have no provable basis in objective fact.  This in turn seriously and unreasonably constrains scientific progress.

 

Finally, with regard to electrons performing two full closed loops, it appears that we are yet again talking at cross-purposes!  First, when I asked Richard for any references specifically to empirical evidence, I didn’t have in mind theoretical models from others such as yourself – or even de Broglie.  I have great respect for your theories, but I don’t see them in the same light as experimentally demonstrated fact; the same goes for any theory, even one put forward by such a great figure as the noble Count.  As for de Broglie, you’ll see that my reference to his attempt to conform with SR was specifically in relation to his linking his two waves in such a way as to conserve frame symmetry – which, unless I’m quite wrong, is a concept that owes its significance to being one of the two postulates of SR.

 

If I were to move at speed v alongside a butterfly that was itself moving linearly through space at speed v whilst simultaneously tracing out vertical circles – with no reference image behind the butterfly to measure its motion by – then that spiral motion would look to me like closed circles.  I’m afraid that no matter how hard I try I cannot imagine it otherwise.  Neither can I see that it would be different in respect of a photon moving both cyclically and linearly at the same time: for one moving alongside it, it would appear to perform closed loops; for one not so moving with it, it would appear to trace out an open spiral path – no closed loops.

 

This does not mean that a moving electron has “come undone”, any more than an electron ‘comes undone’ in transiting from one atomic orbital to another (and neither is that magic).  It simply means that looping electromagnetic flow that’s simultaneously traversing space linearly is tracing out a spiral – just as anything else would.  Whirl a hose round and round: you’ll get a jet of water forming a circle.  Now do that whilst running along with the hose: you’ll get a spiralling jet of water.  To claim that for some reason this should not be so for a photon is surely to claim a privileged position for transverse electromagnetic waves – essentially, to claim SR frame symmetry as a fact (and so to apparently propose that as empirical evidence of itself!). Whatever this is, it’s certainly not the empirical evidence I was asking for!

 

[My first paper in ‘Kybernetes’, April 2011, describes motion as a particle shifting from a closed-loop stable state to a spiral energy-flow, equally stable, state.  Why you suggest this means that an electron has “come to bits” I’m not sure: has the spring in your retractable ballpoint come to bits?  If electromagnetic field effects can sustain a closed-loop repeating pattern, why can they not sustain a linearly-repeating spiral pattern?  This is what empirical evidence – buckets of it – tells me is exactly what’s happening.  To suppose otherwise, it seems to me, is presupposing frame symmetry in preference over evidence of biros, butterflies and anything else that describes a spiral!]

 

[I believe that your reference to your & Martin’s relation for de B’s ‘Harmony of the Phases’ is a reference to your Equation 21.  I’m afraid I can’t agree that you can derive it from the static-observer perspective then just slide into the particle-frame perspective by simply dropping what you refer to as the ‘space-like’ component; there’s a bit of accounting to be done here in terms of time dilation – as I observe in my note on this in my previous email, the view as seen wholly from the perspective of the static observer.]

 

 

Richard

======

With reference to your request for my 6-page analysis of a Compton scattering event from the perspective of my non-frame-symmetric take on physical reality: it’s fairly clear from your responses and John’s that my view of reality, as derived directly from photonic particle structure, is not as well understood as I would wish.  This is probably down to lack of clarity on my part, it also seems to me to be partly due to a reluctance (even if unconscious) on the part of those immersed in SR concepts to view matters in a way that owes nothing to objective frame symmetry.  Either way I wouldn’t wish to offer up that analysis for ‘dissection’ on the basis of only a partial understanding of where it’s coming from.

 

Those six pages start at p. 118 of my book; in other words they follow over 100 pages of explanatory material, which I regard as a fair introduction to the concepts that they’re based on.  I’m hopeful that in the not-too-distant future I’ll have an opportunity to explain those concepts in an interactive environment such as a group discussion or a conference.  Until then I’m sure you’ll understand if I don’t throw them into the ring ‘out of context’, so to speak, as I don’t think that would benefit either you or me.

 

Best regards,

Grahame

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Williamson 
  To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
  Cc: Phil Butler ; Anthony Booth ; Stephen Leary ; Mark,Martin van der ; Solomon Freer 
  Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 2:42 AM
  Subject: Re: [General] Photon cycle rate in moving particle - fasteror 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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160627/b6c50ee8/attachment.htm>