[General] On particle radius

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Sun Jan 8 13:22:23 PST 2017


Hi Dr Graham Blackwell

 

I like the way you clearly and succinctly write.

 

Let me explain some of the reasons why I feel the radius of the electron
decreases with velocity.

 

In order to accelerate the electron at rest, we must apply energy (force
through distance).

The only way to apply energy to the electron, when we get down to the basis,
is to add energy to its existing confined wave structure.  Planck’s rule
suggests that this confined wave structure with energy added has a
wavelength which is (h c)/E. If this is the case and the momentum of this
wave remains p=E/c, then in order to be a spin ½ hbar particle, it seems the
electron must have a radius which is r = (h c)/(4 pi E). Where E is the new
total energy with velocity throughout this paragraph.

 

Then when we calculate the mass of this particle from its confined momentum
(as Richard has pointed out) we get the expected relativistic (total) mass
of the moving particle. m = E/(r w c) = E/c^2= E Eo Uo. Which is exactly
equivalent to m = y m. [where w = c/r (angular frequency)].

 

This is the only scenario I have found where all of the expected parameters
are accommodated, and I have searched extensively for other possibilities.

 

We also note that the scattering cross-section of an electron at
relativistic velocities is very small, and agrees with these assumptions
quite well.

 

In order for the electron radius to remain the same size with velocity I
think we have to ignore things which seem quite important, and these
specific things appear to be required in order to tie several of the pieces
of the puzzle together. It seems the picture is just not complete unless the
radius of the electron is reduced with velocity.

 

Thoughts?

 

Chip

 

 

 

 

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 10:33 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

 

Dear Chip, Vivian, Richard et al.,

 

Electron through aperture: will she, won’t she? Do she, don’t she?

 

It’s interesting to note that Chip is quite definite that the electron will
pass through the aperture, from all perspectives, at 0.1c – whilst Vivian is
equally definite that it will be blocked from both perspectives at 0.1c.
Does this not suggest to the inquiring mind that there IS an issue to be
addressed here?

 

Chip, it appears that you may have misread what I wrote.  For myself, I
agree totally that the aperture will not change in size with velocity;
however my point is that the dictates of SR, coupled with a proposed
reduction in transverse radius of an electron moving at speed, demand that
this is the case if there is to be no contradiction.

 

You refer to “the electron at rest which is barely small enough to pass
through this aperture”; the point that I’m making is that this electron is
ONLY small enough to pass through this aperture because it’s NOT at rest, by
virtue of its relativistically-reduced transverse diameter whilst travelling
at speed 0.9c (taking on board, for the sake of analysis, the proposition
that such a reduction occurs – a proposition with which I myself disagree).
This naturally would mean (following this line of thought) that if the speed
of the electron were reduced it would then have a larger cross-section and
so would NOT fit through that aperture – this is the fundamental point of my
analysis of the logical consequence of such a proposition in the context of
a universe in which SR is an objective reality.  In such a universe the same
scenario can be viewed from the ‘rest-frame’ of the electron; unless the
outcome is altered just by taking a different viewpoint (i.e. the electron
DOES fit through the aperture in the lower-speed case), it follows that,
from the electron-rest-frame perspective, the aperture has reduced in size
due to its moving more slowly relative to the electron.  Since the outcome
(fits / doesn’t fit) must be the same irrespective of viewpoint, we have a
contradiction if that aperture doesn’t vary in size.  This calls into
serious question the fundamental premise of SR as it's generally believed
and applied.

 

[I’m in total agreement with you that a form of SR does prevail in the
universe, but it’s NOT the totally objective SR proposed and applied in
conventional science; careful analysis shows that the majority of observed
effects of SR are in fact observer effects, coupled with the objective
realities of relativistic length contraction as mooted by Larmor, Lorentz &
Fitzgerald (on the basis of Maxwell's findings), also dilation of ‘personal
time experience’ for objects moving at speed, due to the nature of particle
structure.  This has very significant implications for various aspects of
physics, including putting paid to the feared risks to causality from closed
timelike curves or FTL travel - since, contrary to the conventional SR view,
there is a unique universal inertial reference frame (which I understand to
correspond to the frame of Chandra's CTF).  (Since writing this I've
received your latest email in which you state: "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."  This could have
been me writing that, this is my position precisely.)]

 

Vivian, I'm rather surprised at your response.  On the basis of your
dismissal of my 'thought experiment' it appears that you could have nipped
SR in the bud if you'd been around at the time.  I can just see it:
"Lightning striking the SAME length of track SIMULTANEOUSLY in TWO places?!
And there just HAPPENS to be some guy standing EXACTLY midway at the very
instant that it happens?!!  PLUS on top of that there just HAPPENS to be a
train passing the spot with someone looking out the window (with a couple of
mirrors so they can see both flashes)??!!!  Sorry Al, it just ain't ever
gonna happen!"

 

[Not banter, rather commentary on your dismissal of a line of reasoning
well-used by Einstein and others.]

 

As for GR, who knows what you'd have made of the guy in a box who doesn't
know if he's in a gravitational field or if the box is being pulled by some
giant being at an accelerating rate through an area of space totally free of
gravitational field.  Ok, the guy could have been KO'd, the 'giant' could be
some spacecraft (presumably no sound or vibration to pass along the cable?)
- but in deep space?? (No grav field).

 

[Maybe at some time in the far distant future some highly evolved beings
might create that scenario – possibly the same HEBs who might create the
aperture that I hypothesise, maybe out of neutronium, who knows?  In fact
that’s all quite irrelevant – read on.]

 

All of the commentaries I've seen on the railway thought experiment are in
agreement that it’s not necessary to observe that scenario in order to draw
logical inferences from it: hence the name ‘thought experiment’.  This is
doubly so in a reductio-ad-absurdum situation such as the one I’ve
presented: it’s not necessary to observe two mutually contradictory events
failing to happen simultaneously in order to be certain that two mutually
contradictory events cannot happen simultaneously.

 

With regard to your reference to the elephant, observer having different
mass and what the observer sees, this is in fact all quite irrelevant.  The
observer in the SR context is simply a hypothetical witness to events that
occur whether or not they're observed: if a particle passes through an
aperture from the perspective of one reference frame but fails to in
another, in respect of one and the same incident, then we have a
contradiction whereby the same electron both passes through a barrier and
collides with it simultaneously.  One can dress it up with all manner of
words, the facts of the dual SR interpretation of that event remain.

 

As for experiments: I’m a great believer in experimental evidence, a theory
that contradicts such evidence is worth nothing, as is a theory based on no
concrete evidence; however, as Chip has effectively observed, evidence
provided by results of an experiment is not necessarily proof of one
person’s (or even a thousand people’s) interpretation of that evidence.
Whereas if a theory leads to a glaring contradiction simply by logical
reasoning, then no experimental evidence is needed to show that theory to be
erroneous.  I suggest that “advancing the cause” can be achieved at least as
effectively by (a) considering fully plausible alternative interpretations
of existing experimental evidence; and (b) applying logical reasoning, in
the light of existing evidence, to test theories – as by conducting one more
experiment whose outcomes may or may not be due to assumed cosmic
principles.

 

In short, my question stands: SR, coupled with a particle whose transverse
diameter reduces with speed, either creates a contradiction or requires that
a moving aperture increases in size with speed of motion.  Which is it to be
and, if the latter, what is the explanation for this?

 

Richard, since writing the above I note that you have reiterated your
reducing-lateral-radius electron in your latest email on this subject.  I’d
be interested to hear how you reconcile this with the two contradictory
views of events from the two rest-frames, as embedded in SR (which I know
you subscribe to) in accordance with the above analysis.  Since you have
yourself espoused the notion that we should each submit constructive
criticism of each others’ theories, and have regularly done so yourself, I
know that you’ll take this in the spirit in which it’s intended.

 

Regards to all,

Grahame

 

================

 

From: Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>  

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>  

Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2017 12:52 AM

Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

 

Hi Dr Graham Blackwell

 

In my view the aperture will not change in size with velocity, since the
aperture is transverse to the motion, and is an object made of particles
bound together with electromagnetic forces.

 

So my thought is that the electron at rest which is barely small enough to
pass through this aperture, when incident on this aperture will always be
able to pass through it.

If the situation is reversed however, and the electron is moving, the
electron will become smaller with motion and still (even with more room to
spare) pass through the aperture.

 

So in neither case does the aperture have to change size.

 

But, as you mentioned, I do not feel SR is accurate.  Close, but not quite
right.

Chip

==========

From: Vivian Robinson <mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>  

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>  

Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:26 AM

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170108/3506612c/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list