[General] On particle radius

[Richard Gauthier]

Hi Grahame and all,

   Thanks for your question about how I justify the reduced transverse radius of the helical trajectory of the charged photon model with velocity as R=Ro/gamma^2, where Ro=hbar/2mc (See below for the aperture question.) All electron modelers need to keep in mind the experimentally determined maximum size of the electron of about 10^-18 m as measured in high energy electron-electron scattering experiments (at about 30GeV). The R=Ro/gamma^2 result above for the trajectory radius of the spin 1/2 charged  photon, when added to the actual radius R1=L/4pi =  Ro/gamma of my detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model (described briefly in this forum in the past), gives a total transverse helical radius Rtotal = Ro/gamma^2 + Ro/gamma = Ro ( 1/gamma^2 + 1/gamma)  where Ro=hbar/2mc . This total transverse radius Rtotal of the charged photon electron model is dominated by the spin 1/2 photon's radius in high electron energy scattering  to give Rtotal -> Ro/gamma , consistent with these experimental results.
   
   On the theoretical side, the R=Ro/gamma^2 result is derived from setting the circulating charged photon's energy E=hf equal to electron's total energy formula E=gamma mc^2 and solving for the photon's wavelength L=h/(gamma mc). This result of decreasing charged photon wavelength L with increasing electron velocity is used together with the increasing double-looping frequency f=2 gamma mc^2  with increasing electron velocity of the helically double-looping photon . The result is a quantitative geometrical helical model for the trajectory of the spin 1/2 charged photon. The helical radius R=Ro/gamma^2 of the trajectory emerges naturally from both the increasing double-looping frequency and the decreasing wavelength of the spin 1/2 charged photon with increasing electron speed. I showed that this result is also the case for Vivian’s helically-circulating-photon particle model when it is corrected to include the decreasing wavelength of the circulating photon associated with the particle’s increasing speed, which he had left out of his derivation. The de Broglie wavelength L-compton = h/(gamma mv) falls out easily from this spin 1/2 charged photon wavelength L=h/(gamma mc) result. I don’t think John and Martin used this reduced photon-wavelength relationship L=h/gamma mc in their 1997 electron-modeling article. You also don’t use it in your particle model. 

   Your circulating-photon-like object particle model maintains a constant transverse radius as the speed (and energy) of the moving particle increases. The frequency of helical rotation of your photon-like object  therefore actually decreases as 1/gamma with increasing particle speed. But based on energy considerations the circulating photon frequency of a helically-moving-photon model should INCREASE with the particle’s energy in proportion to gamma due to E=gamma mc^2 for the total energy of a moving particle with mass. De Broglie’s own derivation of the de Broglie wavelength incorporated both an increasing frequency (due to increasing electron energy) with electron speed, and also a seemingly contradictory decreasing frequency with increasing electron speed (due to the relativistic time dilation effect.) He rationalized both of these frequencies using his “harmony of phases” argument. But your particle model doesn’t contain the increasing frequency with photon energy or particle energy at all (as far as I know). We have previously discussed the problem of your particle model’s spin at relativistic energies. If your particle is composed of a spin 1 hbar circulating photon (or even a spin 1/2 hbar circulating photon) , either of these spins will add to the orbital spin of your electron model that (due to its constant radius with increasing particle speed) remains a constant 1/2 hbar with increasing speed of your electron model. This gives your electron model a total spin of 1 1/2 hbar or 1 hbar (depending the spin 1 or spin 1/2  of the photon model you use) at highly relativistic velocities, which contradicts the experimental spin 1/2 for an electron at all velocities. With my model (and Vivian’s corrected model) the orbital contribution of spin 1/2  hbar (which is correct for a slowly moving electron) decreases rapidly to zero (as 1/gamma^2) at relativistic particle velocities, and the spin 1/2 of the helically circulating photon becomes the spin 1/2 of the electron model itself at relativistic energies.
 
   As for the question of whether a fast-moving (with v=0.9c) electron can go through an aperture with a radial size that might block a slower moving electron (with v=0.1c) , I think that one has to appeal to the photon-like quantum wave nature of the electron to answer the question. My charged-photon electron model is proposed to generate de Broglie wavelength quantum waves in its longitudinal direction of motion that would interact with an aperture or slit (or 2 slits) and predict (by quantum wave diffraction and interference effects) the probability of detecting electrons at a screen on the other side of the aperture, whether for slow moving electrons or for fast moving electrons. Moving electrons are not like wooden pegs that one tries to fit through various hole sizes relative to the size of the electron peg. But In general I think one would find a higher probability of finding  fast-moving (v=0.9c) electrons on the other side of a small enough aperture as compared to the probability of finding  slow-moving (v=0.1c)  electrons on the other side of the same small aperture. There should be no contradiction in this result, whether an observer is in the inertial frame of the moving electron, or stands next to the aperture that individual electrons are passing (or not passing) through.

     Richard 

> On Jan 8, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>>  
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <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/20170108/3213db8f/attachment.htm>