[General] On particle radius

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Sun Jan 8 05:53:49 PST 2017


Hi Vivian

 

Thank you for the email. But you did not explain anything with which I am
unfamiliar.

 

For decades I felt that SR and GR were absolutely correct. Defended them
vigorously. And studied them extensively. Especially SR.

 

However my opinion has changed simply because of things learned while
studying the cause of SR. Matter made from light speed energy. If you start
from that premise, and construct a theory of relativity based simply on the
results of that premise, the results are, in my opinion, a more accurate
view, with a causal basis.

 

Question. Do you feel that space is a medium through which waves travel?

 

Chip

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2017 9:03 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

 

Hi Chip,

 

The only rest frame is that of the observer, whatever is his/her position.
Given a standard clock, weight and yardstick, an observer (Ob 1) anywhere in
space and time will measure those dimensions and always get the same answer.
Another observer with a  different velocity in a different gravitational
field (Ob 2) who measures Ob 1's time, weight and distances will get a
different answer from that measured by Ob 1. 

 

Consider both observers starting out at rest wrt each other. Ob1 stays put
and Ob 2 is accelerated to a different velocity and gravitational field.
(launching a satellite is an example.) Wrt to Ob1, Ob 2's velocity
increases, its mass increases and its time slows down according to special
relativity theory (SRT). According to Ob 1, this shows up as an increase in
the frequency of the photons in each individual fundamental particle
(proton, neutron and electron). The increased frequency isn't noticed by Ob
2 because his time frame has slowed down, so he still measures his mass,
length and time (MLT) as the same as when he was with Ob 1. 

 

As Ob 2 gains altitude his potential energy is increased. This also shows up
by the frequencies of his individual fundamental particles (FPFs) increasing
and his time slowing down. The energy to increase his FPFs comes from the
rocket engines used to raise his altitude. 

 

When in orbit, the only means Ob 1 can determine anything associated with Ob
2 (and vice versa) is by the exchange of photons. Ob 1 will receive photons
from Ob 2 that have travelled from a higher altitude to a lower altitude.
They have lost potential energy (PE) and gained kinetic energy (KE). For a
constant (for all observers) velocity particle, an increase in KE means an
increase in frequency (and mass through E = mc^2 = hnu). The photon is blue
shifted. Ob 1 will see activities by Ob 2 as occurring slightly faster than
Ob 2 will see his own activities. Similarly photons from Ob 1 will be
redshifted when detected by Ob 2. These difference are calculable from
general relativity theory (GRT) and they match observation.

 

Ob1 views Ob 2 at a different velocity, which gives rise to a Doppler effect
-redshift when Ob  2 is moving away from Ob 1 and blueshift when Ob 2 is
moving towards Ob 1. The amount of that shift is given by the special
relativity theory (SRT) doppler correction. Again those calculations match
observation. 

 

Each observer measures standard MLT dimensions based upon local conditions.
All will all get the same answer for their local conditions because the
frequencies of the fundamental particles are all adjusted for local
conditions. All will get different answers for the MLT dimensions of other
observers. 

 

There is no need for a set reference frame. As far as every observer is
concerned, his reference frame is the set frame from which everything else
can be accurately measured. The SRT and GRT (black holes etc. excluded)
corrections can be used by Ob 1 to calculate what observer 3 (Ob 3) would
measure near Ob 3, based upon what Ob 1 sees. 

 

The only absolute frame of reference is angular motion. All observers will,
if using sufficiently sensitive equipment or viewing distant objects, detect
absolute angular motion. Ob 1 can detect and calculate his angular motion
accurately and accurately calculate the angular motion of Ob 2 orbiting
Earth. The frame of reference for angular motion is fixed at no detectable
motion. There is no fixed fame of reference for linear motion. 

 

SRT enables any observer Ob 1 to calculate the local conditions that would
be experienced by Ob 3 based upon the observed redshift of photons Ob 1
detects from Ob 3 if there is no gravitational influence or gravitational
influence is known. GRT enables Ob 1 to calculate the local conditions that
would be experienced by Ob 3 in a different gravitational field if there no
velocity influence or the velocity influence is known, based upon the
redshift of the detected photons. It goes without saying that GR and SR
redshifts can be confused if there is no independent means of separating
them. 

 

Hope that helps.

 

Sincerely,

 

Vivian Robinson

 

PS      I fail to see why anyone wants to change SRT. It is fine. GRT is
also fine for r >> alpha. It needs refining as r approaches alpha. I suggest
that refinement is in my paper
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013081410504275.pdf

It also needs refining for vast galactic distances as it affects the
interpretation of redshift from distant galaxies. Chip you have a copy of
that. I must get some time to publish it soon.

 

 

 

On 08/01/2017, at 4:32 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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" <
<mailto:grahame at starweave.com> 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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170108/37728e9f/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list