[General] On particle radius

Sat Jan 7 16:31:36 PST 2017

Hello Vivian and all,

    Yes, now I understand. Thank you for making things clearer. I do apologize. The time t in your article’s derivation of Rv (the dependance of the photon’s helical trajectory radius on a particle's velocity) is, as you said in your article and recently insisted, the time t for a photon to move at light speed one full closed loop of length ct = 2 pi Ro in a stationary 1-loop particle model as seen by a stationary observer, and the same time t for a photon composing a moving particle (moving to the right at velocity v) to travel at light speed a distance ct=2pi Ro along the photon's helical trajectory as the moving particle passes by the stationary observer. 

   You then take this distance vt = 2 pi Ro as the length of one full helical turn of the moving particle. This distance ct = 2 pi Ro is one Compton wavelength h/mc. Then you calculate the radius Rv of the photon’s helical trajectory (as it depends on the particle's velocity v) based on this one full helical trajectory turn length ct = 2 pi Ro , and find that Rv=Ro/gamma.  BUT your derivation does not take into account that for the moving particle, the wavelength of the helically-moving photon as measured by a stationary observer would be LESS than the wavelength Lcompton = 2pi Ro of the circling photon in the stationary particle as measured by the stationary observer. This is due to the greater energy (and therefore the higher frequency and lower wavelength) of the helically moving photon in the moving particle as compared to the energy of the circling photon in the stationary particle. When we set the moving particle photon’s energy E= hf = hc/L = gamma mc^2 for the total energy E=gamma mc^2 of the moving particle, and solve for the photon’s wavelength L, we get L= h/(gamma mc) = Lcompton/gamma ,  which is L= 2pi Ro / gamma  for your single-looping photon particle. So the length along one full helical turn of the photon for the moving particle will be L = 2 pi Ro/ gamma = ct/gamma and not  2 pi Ro = ct as you assumed in your calculation. The photon composing the moving particle would travel a helical distance greater than one full helical turn in your time t where ct= 2pi Ro .

     So the correct helical length for one full helical turn is L = 2pi Ro/ gamma rather than 2pi Ro , due to the shorter photon wavelength of the photon composing the moving particle compared with that of the stationary particle. The time for a photon to travel this shorter photon wavelength distance is 2 pi Ro/gamma = t/gamma instead of  the time t in your calculation for the photon to travel the distance 2pi Ro.  So your formula for calculating Rv, the helical radius of the photon’s trajectory, must be corrected  to become   (2 pi Rv)^2 + (v t/gamma)^2 = (c t/gamma)^2  rather than your current formula  (2 pi Rv) ^2 + (vt)^2 = (ct)^2 .  When we solve this corrected equation for Rv using your ct= 2 pi Ro , we get Rv = Ro/gamma^2 , which has the same  1/gamma^2 dependence of R on particle velocity that I found in my relativistic electron modeling work. A very nice convergence of particle models!

   Vivian, you may choose to ignore this correction. But the correction is unlikely to significantly adversely affect your many experimental predictions from your current particle model. And it may permit you to make additional interesting experimental predictions as well. Plus, I believe this represents significant progress in our particle modeling efforts.

    Happy new year!

           Richard

> On Jan 7, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.org>] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:39 PM
>>> To: Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>>
>>> Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?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
> <a href="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/20170107/52a4c58f/attachment.htm>