[General] "All motion is relative"

Sun Aug 27 20:17:12 PDT 2017

Hi Chip and Viv,
   We come back to the question of the theoretical relationship of the radius of the helical trajectory of the photon forming the relativistic electron in our various light-speed helically-trajectory electron models. You two I believe think that this helical radius decreases as 1/gamma, Grahame thinks that this helical radius is independent of gamma, and I think it decreases as 1/gamma^2 (taking into account the increase of the circulating photon-like object’s frequency with the relativistic electron’s energy: E=gamma mc^2 = hf. In practice my internally superluminal relativistic electron model (including the superluminal quantum forming a spin-1/2 charged photon that forms the electron, and having its own helical radius of Lambda/4pi) also produces a net decrease in the total radius of the relativistic electron model as 1/gamma instead of 1/gamma^2, like both of your models (and which is also consistent with experiment as I understand from what John W has said previously and what high-energy electron scattering experiments around 30 Gev imply, which Viv refers to.
    with best regards,
          Richard

> On Aug 27, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Viv Robinson <viv at universephysics.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chip,
> 
> Yes! That is why electrons are detected as point particles when accelerated to high voltages (rad < 10^-18 m), yet behave as extended particles (rad ≈ 1.93 x 10^-13 m) at rest. IMHO, the diameter follows the SRT correction gamma. It can be tested experimentally. To the best of my knowledge that experiment has not been performed at intermediate energies, keV to MeV.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Vivian Robinson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 August 2017 at 12:38:11 PM, Chip Akins (chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>) wrote:
> 
>> Hi Vivian
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Questions.  Do you feel that when you add energy to an electron it causes its frequency to increase so that E=hv? If so, then do you believe that accelerating an electron causes this same effect? And if so, do believe that a relativistic electron has a smaller spin (action) radius than an electron at “rest”?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Chip
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Viv Robinson
>> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2017 8:16 PM
>> To: Albrecht Giese <phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On more than one occasion I have indicated that the best way of solving a problem is to state the scientific or physics principle upon which your point of view is based and then use mathematics to determine the magnitude of that principle’s effect. This is still the best method of getting a point of view across. However this “twin paradox” debate continues on opinion alone. Participants seem more interested in expressing a view to prove their point than demonstrating it scientifically with physics and calculations. Central to many participants viewpoint is that Einstein’s special relativity theory sin error.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Those holding that view should at least give an experimental result that doesn’t match an SRT prediction. I would remind participants that SRT (and sometimes general relativity theory) calculations give us highly accurate global positioning systems. If you believe the SRT calculations are in error, state an example.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The "twin paradox” is often started as one example.It is here that I refer to Chip’s two space craft with beeping lasers. So Chip, let us consider the whole situation. One space craft is launched from Earth, another from a planet in a neighboring star system. Both use a universal frequency and send beeps, same or different period, it doesn’t matter. They have spent years traversing deep space. Separate violent events sends both off course and no way of knowing where they were when they regained control of their craft. By a strange co-incidence they find themselves detecting each other’s signals. They approach each other with no way of knowing their position or actual speeds. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> They soon determine their relative speeds and their clocks are synchronized. They approach each other. At their closest approach they exchange time information. Chip, I believe that is a situation you propose. Allowing for Doppler effects, when they exchange times. Space craft A will detect its clock as being slower than space craft B. Space craft B will detect its time as faster than A. This indicates space craft A is going faster than space craft B. Perhaps you could take that as an indication that there is an absolute reference against which all speeds are measured. Not so!
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The stars in our neighboring region of the galaxy are in a reasonably fixed positions wrt each other. Planets revolving around their habitat zone would have approximately the same speed. In effect both space craft would head out from objects that have approximately constant separation distance from each other. That is they are at relative rest wrt each other. Both can be considered as starting from the zero velocity wrt each other. Even though both crews have lost all knowledge of their whereabouts in relation to their origins, the space craft have been subjected to all the relativity corrections wrt speed from their origins. Because their origin velocities were approximately the same, their reference is approximately the same. Therefore they would know which was traveling the faster from their origin point and hence wrt each other compared to their starting velocities. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The only variation to this is if both space crafts were traveling at approximately the same speed from their origin and their measuring equipment was super accurate. In that case, by referencing their positions and velocities wrt the background stars, they would be able to work out which space craft emerged from the deeper gravitational potential and possibly the speed difference at launch. Earth’s general relativity correction is about 10^-8. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> In short, there is never any twin paradox because both twins were originally at the same place and time. The internal SRT corrections will always be adjusted to that reference. Likewise there is no time paradox for independent travelers because their origins were almost at rest wrt each other. If you managed to get intergalactic travelers from hundreds of millions of light years away you could get an additional redshift imposed upon the relatively velocities. I don’t intend to work out how to calculate that effect because I consider it an unlikely situation during my lifetime.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> So what is the physical reason for that? IMHO it is that the SRT corrections are due to the rotating or toroidal photon structure of matter. In other words, it is an inherent property of matter. It is not a property of space. If it were a property of space then all corrections would be referenced to a single point in space. If that were the case, that single point would be close to the Earth’s centre because SRT calculations are required to get accurate navigation information. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> At the risk of sounding repetitive, If you want people to follow your logic, give the physics behind it and back it up with mathematical calculations. Not everything in standard model physics is wrong. That some people don’t understand Einstein’s calculations doesn’t make them wrong. They are wrong when they don’t match observation. Using some small effect with questionable interpretation is not a sound foundation to dismantle an otherwise working theory.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Vivian Robinson
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On 26 August 2017 at 12:49:20 AM, Albrecht Giese (phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>) wrote:
>> 
>> Dear John W and Grahame,
>> 
>> I think that I should explain a bit about this discussion between Wolf and myself. Why this discussion is as it is.
>> 
>> I find the topic of Wolf about conciousness very interesting and very important. So I have continued with this discussion. But, unfortunately in my view, Wolf is basing his thoughts on a wrong understanding of relativity. The finds that this "incorrect" theory 'SRT' is an indication of our human failure to understand physics and so of our misleading consciousness. - But not SRT is incorrect (as some of you have already and repeatedly written) but Wolf's understanding is wrong. - I am trying to give Wolf a correct understanding as a precondition for a successful development of the issue of consciousness. I see that this may be boring for those who have understood relativity. But what else can we do to get ahead?
>> 
>> Any ideas?
>> 
>> Albrecht
>> 
>> Am 24.08.2017 um 11:35 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
>> 
>> Very well put, John - I totally agree.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Both Albrecht and Wolf are addressing important points - but they are quite different points.
>> 
>> It's absolutely true that Albrecht has the right of it within the context of the sort of stuff that this forum is primarily about. But by the same token, Wolf is raising significant points, points that just don't really happen to fit with the main substance of this group 'discussion'.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Wolf, I find your input fascinating, many times I've wanted to exclain "Yes!" - but it tends too much to take us away from the physical-realm based stuff that really needs to be pinned down if physics is to progress at that level.  The consciousness issue also needs (very importantly) to be addressed - I believe our progress will be severely limited until/unless we DO address it - but as quite a different topic.  (Maybe we need a separate discussion group...)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks, John, for drawing that very helpful distinction.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 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: Mark, Martin van der <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> ; Pete Delaney <mailto:piet.delaney.2 at gmail.com> ; Darren Eggenschwiler <mailto:d.e.a.eggenschwiler at gmail.com> ; Innes Morrison <mailto:innesdmorrison at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 8:47 AM
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear Wolf and Albrecht.
>> 
>> Please forgive me if I am wrong, and you are both really communicating deeply, but I do not think the two of you are really communicating at all on any meaningful level.
>> 
>> Albrecht, you do not seem to get what Wolf is talking about at all, and keep trying to draw him back to the limited grounds of SR, which is quite irrelevant to most of what he is trying to say. On another forum his approach would be taken to be the majority view.
>> 
>> Wolf, you should not be trying to go onto the grounds of the argument with SR as this is not what you are about. You are going to lose on those grounds as SR is perfectly self-consistent and does describe the physics of synchrotrons perfectly. Albrecht is right: otherwise they would not work. This is not to say that SR is in any way the whole story. It is not, as is being discussed in some of the other threads. 
>> 
>> This whole back and forth has become a prime example of both of you making up what you think the other is talking about and then arguing with that instead of conducting a proper discussion with each other. You are both arguing, effectively, with yourself. This is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, as one or both of you may come to the realisation that you have something to learn and that is always a good thing. It has become pretty tiring for an outside observer though.
>> 
>> Regards, John.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 viv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com> 
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.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 <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/20170827/2fa1fad9/attachment.htm>