[General] On particle radius
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Sat Jan 7 09:32:47 PST 2017
Hi Vivian
You have made some very good points. Both in your discussion here and in
your written works.
One thing that occurs to me is that if matter is made of confined light
speed energy, there is a form of "relativity" which is dictated by that set
of conditions. This form of "relativity" is simple, causal, without
paradox, based in 3 dimensional Euclidian space, and implies that there is a
reference rest frame in space, even if we cannot detect what that rest frame
is. This form of relativity shows us specifically how and why things appear
relative.
The difference between this form of relativity, and the common
interpretations of SR and GR is subtle, but significant enough to make a
difference, if we want to actually advance our physical knowledge. No
experiment that I am aware of has ever invalidated this form of relativity
either, but both forms cannot be correct. And this form, which I call
"specific relativity" is specifically dictated by matter being made of light
speed energy. In other words this theory is able to show physical cause for
its basis.
So in this case, experiment is not currently an arbiter which can help us to
know precisely which form of relativity is correct. Yes, experiment, all of
experiment over time, is the final arbiter, .but without thought,
discussion, open minds, and an eagerness to learn as much as we can, we will
remain stuck in our current physical dark ages. Without these things we
don't even know what to look at, or which experiments to attempt to conduct.
History has shown us time and again that a theory can agree with certain
experiments, and still be incorrect. We do not likely have that theory (yet)
which agrees with all experiment ever conducted, and all experiment to be
conducted in the future.
Regrettably we humans interpret the results of experiment in a way which
validates our favorite theories, instead of looking at all the
possibilities. Yep. Me too.
Thoughts?
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 10:26 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius
Grahame, Richard and All,
Grahame, regarding your thought experiment below. It is a meaningless
exercise because there is no material from which such an aperture can be
constructed. If you know of one, please let me know what it is. On the
premise that such an aperture could be constructed, the result of the
experiment would be the same, irrespective of the position or velocity of
the observer. An observer at rest wrt the aperture will see the electron
pass through it at 0.9 c. At 0.1 c the electron would be blocked in the
classical sense.
Now what happens when the observer is moving with the electron? The answer
will still be the same. At 0.9 c the electron will pass through the
aperture. At 0.1 c, it will be blocked. When travelling at 0.9 c, the
observer will have very different mass, dimension and time frames of
reference. Under the moving observers reference frame, the electron appear
to him to still have the dimensions it has at rest. That reference frame is
different from that of the observer at rest with respect to the aperture.
Everything is measured relative to the observer. Observers in different
frames of reference see the same thing differently. An observer at rest wrt
the aperture sees a small diameter particle coming towards the aperture. An
observer moving with the electron at 0.9 c will see the electron approaching
a larger aperture.
Regarding your suggestion below that the aperture has to change dimensions.
It doesn't! In the real world, observers looking at the same scene from a
different angle will see it from a different perspective. One observer
looking at the rear end of a bull elephant will see a bulging body with
large legs and a floppy appendage in what is a relatively harmless posture.
Another observer looking at the front end of the same elephant would see a
large body with similar legs, a big head with large tusks and a dangerous
appendage in what could be a very threatening posture. That does not mean
that the elephant transformed from a harmless posterior end to a threatening
frontal end when an observer goes from the rear to the frontal view. The
event is what it is. How it is perceived depends upon the position of the
observer.
I repeat! The event is what it is. What is seen is different for different
observers. Everything is relative to the observer. I venture to suggest that
is why the theory is called relativity. At least with the relativity
theories, special and general (black holes and related phenomena excluded),
we can calculate what an observer in a different reference frame will
observe. As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with Einstein's
special relativity theory. I have not come across any situation in which his
calculations do not match experiment. Despite what others may say, I am
satisfied that special relativity is soundly based upon the rotating photon
model of fundamental matter particles such as the electron in the manner I
described.
Richard G, you are introducing the moving frame of reference of a "train".
Your analogy is not what I was describing. My calculations apply entirely to
an observer at "rest" wrt the the photon passing it at c. A moving observer
will see a different situation. If one uses the special relativity
corrections, it is possible to calculate what the observer in a different
reference frame will observe. When you start with a moving reference frame
to calculate a relativistic effect and assume it is a rest frame
calculation, you will get a different answer than if you start with a rest
frame an calculate the answer. I started with a rest frame and get the
corrections I obtained. Suggesting that I am wrong because you introduce a
moving frame to calculate a similar result and get a different answer has
some problems.
Both sets of mathematics can be correct and different answers are obtained
from different starting points. It is not necessary to introduce a moving
frame of reference to calculate special relativity effects. As far as I am
concerned my calculations from a rest frame are correct and it is the
"rotating photon" model of matter that gives rise to the special relativity
corrections of matter. I have invited you many times to give me an example
of where my calculations do not match observation. I have made several
testable predictions, including the rate at which the radius of a particle
will diminish with velocity. I am wrong when my predictions don't match
observation, If you wish to resume this discussion, the ONLY reason for it
is that my work doesn't match observation.
All, I note a tendency of contributors to use theoretical arguments,
sometimes supported by mathematics. I must state again that the ONLY arbiter
of scientific knowledge is matching observation or experiment. IMHO, every
action or event that occurs has a scientifically based reason for happening.
If you want to propose something different to describe an action, you should
first explain the science behind the action. Then use mathematics to
establish the magnitude of the science just described. Follow that with a
description of how your new presentation matches some known properties of
whatever you are describing. That should be followed by a testable
prediction of some new property or action associated with that type of
event. Then you have something concrete upon which discussion can be
meaningful.
Forwarding different opinions on aspects of someone else's work without
showing how the work impacts upon observation makes for good banter. But it
doesn't do anything to "advance the cause". I suggest that if you want to
show the value of your work, do it by referring to experiment or
observation.
Sincerely,
Vivian Robinson
On 07/01/2017, at 10:30 AM, "Dr Grahame Blackwell" <grahame at starweave.com
<mailto:grahame at starweave.com> > wrote:
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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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
<mailto: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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:39 PM
To: Vivian Robinson < <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>
viv at universephysics.com>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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 <
<mailto:viv at universephysics.com> 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
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at viv at etpsemra.com.au
<mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20170107/479a3f0d/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list