[General] On particle radius

[Dr Grahame Blackwell]

Dear Richard, Chip et al.,

I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling relativistically-decreasing transverse radius of an electron with the postulates of Special Relativity (I believe you're not a fan of SR, Chip, so presumably this isn't an issue to you).

Let's consider a simple thought experiment - call it 'Threading the needle':

An aperture is just of sufficient size to permit the passage through it of an electron moving with a relative speed of 0.9c.
Now we consider same aperture, same electron, but now with a speed of 0.1c relative to each other.
>From the viewpoint of an observer moving with the aperture that electron will now not pass through it (if we work on the premise that transverse radius of electron decreases with speed); however, unless we propose that the transverse measurements of an aperture INcrease with speed (and so reduce with decreasing speed), an observer moving with the electron will not see the passage of that electron through the moving aperture as being obstructed.  So does the electron pass through the aperture in the 0.1c case - or doesn't it??

It appears that if we hold on to both speed-reduced transverse radius of an electron and the postulates of SR, we have a problem - one that can only be resolved by finding a compelling argument for an aperture increasing in size with increasing speed (whatever the nature of its composition).  I've never seen or heard of such a proposition.

I'd be glad of any clarification as to how this apparent contradiction can be resolved.

Best regards,
Grahame


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Richard Gauthier 
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.


Hi Chip,
  I agree with you. But Vivian’s derivation is still incorrect because there is nothing in his particle model that suggests the particle's radius is microscopic. Suppose his particle on the train had a radio wave diameter equal to the height H of the train. His calculation would predict that this particle's diameter would also contract in the moving train to become H/gamma .
  In my electron model, the contraction of the transverse radius of the electron is R=Ro/gamma^2 , but it is through a different derivation than Vivian’s. In my electron model the wavelength of the charged photon reduces as L = Lcompton/gamma while the energy of the charged photon increases as E=Eo x gamma . The result geometrically is that the radius R of the helical trajectory of the moving electron model has to decrease as R=Ro/gamma^2.  Remember that this radius R is the helical radius of the trajectory of the circling charged photon. The charged photon itself (in my detailed charged photon model) has a radius that is inversely proportional to the energy E of the charged photon, so the radius of the electron model as a whole will actually decrease as R=Ro/gamma at relativistic velocities (as E increases), even as the radius of the helical trajectory of the charged photon decreases as R=Ro/gamma^2 .
      Richard


  On Jan 6, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:


  Hi Richard

  Contraction of an elementary fermion does not mean contraction of objects made of these particles.  If the particles are held in atoms and molecules by the electromagnetic force, then the contraction of the objects would be simply longitudinal even if the particles themselves are experiencing transverse contraction.

  For several reasons I think that Rv=Ro/gamma may well be correct for the radius of a moving particle.

  Chip

  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
  Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:39 PM
  To: Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com>
  Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
  Subject: Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.
  Hello Vivian, 
      I’m going to try one more time for the benefit of you and others reading this. (See relevant snapshot from your article below.) Your model of a circling light speed photon with a transverse radius of Ro is like a small light clock on a moving train with an observer traveling with the light clock on the moving train who sees the light make one round trip of circumference  2 pi Ro with the light traveling at c in  time t (the Proper Time as measured by the person traveling on the train with the light clock.) So 2 pi Ro = ct for the traveler on the train for one “tick” of the light clock.  But an observer watching the train and  the light clock go by at speed v to the right measures the light in the  light clock to make one full helical turn (for one “tick” of the moving light clock.) This light traveling at c for a time t’ (as measured by the observer watching the train go by) for a helical distance c t’  which is the length of the helically curving hypotenuse of the light-clock triangle. In the mean time the train moves to the right a distance vt’ as measured by the stationary observer watching the train go by. This helical distance  ct’ measured by the train watcher is given by (2 pi Ro)^2 + (vt’)^2 = (ct’)^2  where t’ > t since the transverse radius of a light clock on a moving train is not different from the transverse radius of the light clock on a stationary train, and the light travels further (taking more time) during one full tick as seen by the observer watching the moving train. According to special relativity, space contraction for a macroscopic object is only in the longitudinal direction of the moving train, not in the transverse direction. There is nothing in your particle model that implies that this non-contraction rule in the transverse direction will not also apply to your particle model’s microscopic transverse radius Ro.  When you substitute 2 pi Ro = ct into the above equation with t’  you get  (ct)^2 = (vt’)^2 + (ct’)^2 which when you solve this equation for t’ gives t’ = gamma t which is the standard time dilation result for an observer watching 1 tick of the moving light clock during the train passing, compared to the time t measured for 1 tick by the person traveling with the light clock on the train. There is no contraction in the transverse direction so Rv = Ro  not Rv=Ro/gamma as you found.  If your particle radius contracted as Ro/gamma, then the whole transverse height  H of the moving train should also contract as H/gamma according to your calculation, which it does not according to special relativity. So your particle’s transverse radius contraction result Rv = Ro/gamma  (equation 7 below) is unfortunately mistaken.
        Richard
  <image002.png>
    On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:14 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com> wrote:
    Richard,

    I have acknowledged several times the error you pointed out in my derivation of the electron's magnetic moment. I have corrected it in my further work, acknowledging you. I have not yet published that and will do so some time in the future. 

    Regarding what you call my error in the .. time of travel of light over the hypotenuse of a right triangle .., I am not sure that you read or understood my paper properly on that part. The "hypotenuse" is not fixed. It has a forward linear motion as well as its spiralling helical motion. This is necessary to maintain the photon's axis at constant speed c. It is that which gives rise to the relativistic corrections. I am satisfied that it is the electron's structure that is responsible for the special relativity corrections through the mechanism proposed. If you have another physical reason for the existence of the special relativity corrections please let us know. In your opinion my mathematics is wrong. In my opinion my mathematics is correct and you have misread or not understood the physical processes involved in my model. Experiment is the best arbiter. 

    You are very wrong about my use of the spin of a photon in an electron. In that paper I made no reference to the the photon's intrinsic spin. i have done that in the article I sent this group last year where I derived the wave equations psi for photons. The spin I derived of the electron was the angular momentum of the photon caused by the mass of the photon (m = hnu/c^2) rotating at c on an axis with a radius r = hbar/2mc, giving angular momentum = half hbar. Due to the reduction in radius I determined, that value of angular momentum is maintained at all relativistic velocities. That is one of the reasons "standard model" physicists insist that spin is not angular momentum as originally proposed by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit. They could not visualise how a point particle (r < 10^-17 m) could have angular momentum. Despite your opinion, I am suggesting that is why a "point particle" can have angular momentum. It matches observation.

    As for the rest of what you call fatal errors, I suggest you refer to experiment. I have made sixteen statements on how the rotating photon model matches observed electron properties and seven predictions of unknown or unrecognised properties. I am wrong when those predictions don't match observation. 

    Richard, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I suggest you are wrong because you misread my paper. You suggest I am wrong because I don't use your calculations, or whatever other reason. Experiment is the only arbiter. I have invited you several times to point out where my model does not match observation. If you still insist I am wrong, why don't you point out where my predictions don't match observation. That is really all you need to do. 

    I suggest we end this discussion unless you point out where my work does not match observation.

    Sincerely,

    Vivian Robinson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170106/c13a1b82/attachment.htm>