[General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.

[Vivian Robinson]

Richard and All,

In my referenced paper I outlined my position on the structure of the electron, namely that it was composed of a photon of the appropriate energy rotating twice in its wavelength. At the time I had not done a full literature search and later found other references to such an idea. The first was by Compton, reference below, in which he proposed an electron as a ring of charge in 1915. His suggested dimension was too high. I also found the reference by Williamson and van der Mark, 1997, and Qiu-Hong Hu (≈ 2005), https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0512/0512265.pdf. 

Several others have since forwarded similar models, perhaps you know their chronological order. This not surprising because the standard model treatment of the electron is as a point particle with properties such as charge, mass, magnetic moment, spin and relativistic corrections attached in a Hamiltonian. It gets the right mathematical answer but doesn't give any physical description. I am sure you, like others, are interested in determining the physical reason behind something. 

Qiu-Hong and others treated the electron as a closed loop as in a hubius coil or mobius strip. That is fine for a stationary electron. It does not allow an electron to move, other than by mathematically attaching the SRT corrections with motion.

Treating the ends of the photon as not making a permanent join allows an electron to spiral or corkscrew its way through space as it moves. The constant speed of light determines that it will automatically subject the electron to all the SRT corrections determined by Einstein and others. That motion describes a helix that the photon's axis follows as it spirals or corkscrews through space. Most important it both gives a physical reason for the SRT corrections and makes experimentally testable predictions of unknown electron properties. In particular it gives an equation of how the radius of the rotating photon will decrease with velocity, which decrease has been measured to be similar to said equation.

Richard, if your model acknowledges that the spiralling rotating photon gives rise to the SRT, we have significant agreement. If your model applies the SRT corrections to a hubius coil or mobius strip we have a significant difference. I am not prepared to accept that mathematical equations are imposed upon any situation without a physical reason for said mathematics. 

Science is not about compromise or consensus. It is about reason. Things happen for a reason. Mathematics can be used to describe that reason. IMHO it is best to determine the physical reason for an event and then check the magnitude of the effect using mathematics. There have been many examples of mathematics successfully predicting events before the physics was established. Newton's gravitational theory and Einstein's SRT are two significant examples. There are many examples of mathematics without a physical explanation leading science "up the garden path". Black holes, treating particles as waves and string theory are some examples. They are so well entrenched in science that scientists wonder why fewer people are prepared to accept scientific explanations. 

Swapping standard model mathematics that attaches properties to particles for no physical reason, for another approach that attaches properties to particles for no physical reason is not my idea of advancing science.

You will see from my paper that I have suggested many ways in which, under the rotating photon model, a moving electron's photon axis spirals or corkscrews its way through space in a helical trajectory describes many known electron properties. In particular I suggest the electron's spiralling motion gives it all the SRT corrections. That paper also make a few testable predictions,  

If you believe you can add further to a paper along those lines, particularly the dereivation of e and µB, it would be good. If you have an alternative derivation of the reason for the SRT corrections it would make interesting reading. Its value would be in making testable predictions. 

IMHO I, and to some extent Qiu-Hong, have provided the "skeleton" of the rotating photon model. Williamson and van der Mark (JW and MvdM) provided some "flesh" around it. There is still a lot more to be done. All contributions welcome.  

As I have said many times before, the value of a theory is in its ability to match observation and make testable predictions. If you wish to forward alternative ideas you need to make testable predictions of unknown properties. Pointing out mathematical calculations that match some known observations without anything that is different and can be tested is not an advance. 

On that note I would like to ask the participants in the debate about inertial mass "What is the discussion about?"  IMHO mass is mass. As I mentioned below all masses, inertial, gravitational, rest, relativistic and invariant are related. Knowing any one enables any other to be determined from knowledge of the gravitational field and velocity of the observer and observed. I agree with Einstein's concept that "..radiation (photons) convey inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies" (Einstein A, Ann. der Phys. 18, p 639 *1906). I see no evidence to suggest he was wrong. It seems to me that a body composed of a rotating photon, or whatever other description is used, will have the same inertia as the original photon. I am happy to be corrected if there is an experimentally measurable difference. 

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson



On 02/01/2017, at 3:25 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Vivian, 
>      Thanks for your further explanations.
>      Our approaches to modeling the electron are so similar in various ways, it would be great to get convergence. Both are independently obtained double-looping helical models of a relativistic electron. In both cases there is light speed movement along the helical (not spiral) trajectories. Both approaches claim to derive the de Broglie wavelength. In both approaches the radius of the helical trajectory is claimed to reduce with increasing speed of the electron. In both cases the relativistic energy-momentum equation for the electron plays an important role. In both cases special relativity is built into the geometry of the helical motion. Since each of us favors our own model, it may be time for an objective third party to compare and contrast the two models. Grahame Blackwell has a third electron-modeling approach which could be included in the comparison. John and Martin’s 1997 electron model and John’s current model could be included. Alex’s bag model. Anyone else’s model to be included?
>        Richard
> 
>> On Jan 1, 2017, at 5:51 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Chandra and All,
>> 
>> Referring to the discussions about special relativity theory (SRT), I make the following comments. That it was developed from theoretical (mathematical/goemetrical or other) considerations does not make it wrong. The ONLY thing that makes SRT wrong is that it does not match experiment or observation. To the best of my knowledge there is no experiment or observation that contradicts SRT. There are at least two possibilities that make SRT calculations match experiment. 
>> 
>> 1)	The SRT corrections are inherent in the structure of all matter particles. in other words they are automatically invoked with motion.
>> OR
>> 2)	The SRT corrections are an inherent property of space. They are applied mathematically and no physical explanation is either available or needed.
>> 
>> This discussion group has previously given an in depth coverage of the electron being composed of a rotating photon, toroidal electromagnetic field or whatever, in which the photon makes two revolutions within its wavelength. The issue of whether the rotating photon formed a closed loop, like a hubius coil or a mobius strip, or formed a spiralling helix. At rest they are equivalent. The only difference is when they move. If the loop is closed and the structure is already traveling at c, no further motion is possible because it would require the loop or parts thereof to travel at superluminal speed (> c). This can be overcome by applying point 2 above and saying that the SRT corrections are an inherent property of space that can be applied as necessary. 
>> 
>> This is overcome if the photon spirals through space as the particle moves. This requires the electron to move in a direction perpendicular to the photon's plane of rotation. When this occurs its rotating helical structure automatically subjects the electron to the SRT corrections of mass, length and time with increasing speed. In other words the SRT corrections are an inherent property of the electron, or any other particle composed of the same rotating photon (or toroidal magnetic field) structure. You can find further details of the derivation of the SRT corrections at:-
>> 
>> http://www.academia.edu/10819172/A_Proposal_on_the_Structure_and_Properties_of_an_Electron
>> 
>> That presentation makes several testable predictions, including that the electron's diameter will diminish as its speed increases. The detection of the electron as a point particle at high energies matches that correction. 
>> 
>> My point is that SR is a theory that works and can be explained by an inherent structure of matter. Further the above paper makes a number of testable predictions. Why is it necessary to show that Einstein was wrong? Not understand something does not make it wrong. I suggest Einstein was correct with SRT. Further there is a satisfactory explanation for SRT corrections with velocity based upon "classical" electromagnetism
>> 
>> Regarding mass. There are five different references to mass, inertial, gravitational, rest, relativistic and invariant. Most agree that inertial mass, mi, is that given in Newton's law, F =  mia, F = force, a = acceleration . In its strictest sense, mi is only constant at the first application of F. After that it accelerates, gaining velocity and hence developing relativistic mass mrel. Gravitational mass mg is given W = mgg, W = weight and g = acceleration due to gravity. Again that is only constant at a particular gravitational strength, or when falling freely in a gravitational field. Rest mass, mres, depends upon the frame of reference in which it is measured. The ultimate rest mass is the inertial mass of a body in flat Minkowski space-time, that is in the absence of any gravitational field and at rest with respect to the observer. 
>> 
>> Relativistic mass, mrel, has two situations. A photon only has mass when traveling at c. The mass of any object increases with its speed with respect to an observer, which increase can be calculated using Einstein's SRT. Finally there is invariant mass, minv. With mass varying depending upon velocity and gravitational field strength, how can it be invariant? The answer is that if you measure the mass of an object at rest with respect to and at the same gravitational field strength as yourself, you will always get the same answer.  
>> 
>> This is explained under the rotating photon model in which the particle spirals as it moves through space with respect to an observer. First the effect of a gravitational field. In flat Minkowski space time, the rotating photon that makes up each individual sub atomic particle, has its base frequency, let is say nue0i for an electron, nu for frequency, e for electron, 0 for velocity and i for infinity (flat Minkowski space-time). Moving freely in a gravitational field it will lose potential energy and gain kinetic energy. Its frequency is unaltered - the special relativity correction with increasing velocity matches its reduction in potential energy. When it is stopped with respect to another observer, the kinetic energy it had with respect to the new stationary observer is released. The electron's frequency now becomes nue0h for the observer at infinity, where h is the height of the local observer. 
>> 
>> There is a time variation between infinity and height h, calculable from general relativity (GR). If the observer in flat Minkowski space-time moves to height h and repeats the frequency measurement, the result will still be nue0i when measured in the new time frame. 
>> 
>> When a particle moves with respect to an observer, its rotating photon is seen to spiral with respect to that observer. As indicated in that paper above, that spiralling gives rise to the SRT corrections of mass, time and distance. If the observer is accelerated with the particle, he will observe the particle as still at rest. The acceleration experienced will have exactly the same effect as being in a gravitational field and the particle will be observed to have a frequency nue0i. However an external observer at "rest" will see that its frequency has increased according to the SRT correction. 
>> 
>> In all situations the mass of the particle is given by hnu/c^2. Irrespective of the situation, a local observer will always get the same answer when measuring the mass of the same body, no matter what the circumstances. External observers will get different answers for the mass depending upon the relationship between observer, observed, gravitational field and velocity.
>> 
>> Think of it this way. Every step you take up stairs increases the frequency of every rotating photon fundamental particle in your body, compared to that which it had at your starting point. However your time zone changes such that, even with the most accurate measurement, you will never detect the difference. The monitoring device you left at your starting point would detect that difference (if it were accurate enough). (For fundamental particle, read proton, neutron and electron only.)
>> 
>> When astronauts are boosted into space by rockets, the energy used to boost them is converted through E = mc^2 into increased mass and hence the frequency of all their fundamental particle rotating photons. When the rockets are switched off they drift with an increased mass and rotating photon frequency from their starting point. Even though they continue to gain potential energy they lose an equivalent kinetic energy and their mass and rotating photon frequencies remain the same to both themselves and an external observer. The SRT correction due to slowing velocity is matched by the change in time due to potential energy, calculable from general relativity theory (GRT). 
>> 
>> Take the frequency (mass) change associated when driving a motor vehicle. As the car accelerates its velocity increases and hence its mass and the frequencies of the individual rotating photon fundamental particles increase through SRT. When the car is slowed down, the increased frequencies of the rotating photon particles are imparted from the particles to whatever caused the decreased velocity. If the change in velocity was due to the application of breaks, the break pads and disks are heated as the frequency is transferred from the mass of the car to them. If the change in velocity is due to the vehicle hitting a large stationary object, the energy will be imparted to those parts of the vehicle most affected by the velocity change, altering the shape of the vehicle. Panel beaters usually take care of small shape changes.
>> 
>> When astronauts return to Earth the additional frequency acquired by them and their vehicle is imparted to the air molecules as they use its effect to slow them down. The frequencies of their individual fundamental particle rotating photons will revert back to the same frequency they had before they embarked upon their journey. 
>> 
>> As another example, consider the situation of a shell fired upwards from a cannon. It receives considerable energy from the explosive charge. This energy increases its velocity, energy and hence the frequencies of its individual rotating photons. After exiting the barrel its new particle rotating photon frequencies remain the same. Even though its velocity reduces as it gains potential energy, giving a SRT time frame change, that change exactly matches its time change due to gravitational field effects GRT. When the shell falls back to the ground, the frequencies of the individual rotating photon particles is imparted from the shell to the ground. 
>> 
>> The points of the above are:-
>> 1	Mass is mass. Whether it is inertial, rest, relativistic, gravitational or invariant, all mass is still mass. Their differences are due to their circumstances of measurement and/or observation. 
>> 2	The interchange between the different masses, and indeed other forms of motion, are well explained by special and general relativity theories (black holes and related phenomena excluded). 
>> 
>> The question becomes one of "Why is it considered necessary to derive alternatives to the special and general theories of relativity? IMHO the spiralling rotating photon model of matter explains the origins of SRT and GRT (black holes and related phenomena excluded). 
>> 
>> Although SRT and GRT were originally calculated mathematically they have sound physical principles based upon the rotating photon (toroidal electromagnetic field or whatever you wish to call it) model for the structure of fundamental particles that make up all matter. Not understanding the physics or hiding behind mathematics is not going to alter the agreement between observation and SRT/GRT (black holes and related phenomena excluded - Einstein didn't agree with them). 
>> 
>> Happy new year,
>> 
>> Vivian Robinson
>> 
>> On 31/12/2016, at 4:40 AM, "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Albrecht, your remark is important: “We have first to understand (and it is written in every text book about relativity) that Einstein's relativity is pure geometry, it is not physics.”
>>>  
>>> Albrecht: I agree and that is also the point, “pure geometry”. I rest my case for this ongoing debate on SR.
>>>      Physics is not about elegant mathematics or geometry. The key purpose of physics is to understand and visualize the invisible interaction processes going on in nature. The skills in utilizing the nature-allowed processes in various permutations and combinations to create new techniques and technologies, have been behind the successful emergence of the human as the top species today. Elegant geometry and mathematical constructs, by themselves, will not save the human species from going extinct if we blindly keep on following the same current success tracks, both in science and in socio-economic philosophy.      
>>>  
>>> Further, let us not ignore that in many undergraduate text books, SR is still presented as one of the core foundation that is holding the “Edifice of Physics” (meaning, thou shall not be challenge this platform of thinking”)! This has to be turned around.
>>>  
>>> This collective psychology of modern physicists (“messiah complex”) has to be turned around toward perpetual critical enquiry of the “working theories”. Because, “working theories” have already captured some ontological realities of nature; so they must be leveraged, through deeper enquiry, to extract even deeper ontological realities. I am trying to initiate such an approach through OSA. Further, before the end of 2017, I will write a full paper accommodating and explaining some of the key PHYSICAL PROCESS known to be related to SR, but as old fashioned classical physics.
>>>  
>>> Chandra. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170103/54810b5f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 211600 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170103/54810b5f/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170103/54810b5f/attachment-0001.htm>