[General] On particle radius

Thu Jan 12 15:09:10 PST 2017

Thanks Richard,

for illustrating so clearly what I said in my latest email: "As long as we have a mainstream scientific community that's not prepared to review SR critically in light of more recent findings, and will defend SR with any argument that comes to hand (however tenuous)...". Right on cue, you have waded in with a totally inappropriate comparison and given nebulous generalisations presumably intended to nullify my carefully-chosen specifics.

Your response to my precisely defined dual-perspective scenario is (apparently) to propose that it is directly comparable to passing linear photons through a slit.  Your rationale (such as it is) for this change of subject is the truism that different frequencies of TEM waves pass through such a slit with different degrees of success.  [See my quote above: "... any argument that comes to hand (however tenuous)...".]  The differences between my proposed scenario and your attempted substitute are too numerous to detail, I will point to just one: my scenario proposes two reference frames from which the same sequence of events may be assessed; could you please identify the two reference frames from which your proposed corresponding scenario may likewise be assessed?  Your vague generalisations in your final para do nothing to elucidate that point and appear to be thrown in only to muddy the water - not what I would hope of an incisive scientific analysis.

I shan't trouble you any further on this subject.  If you can't see my point by now then I doubt that you ever will.  For my part I can't see any point in my studying your model which is based on a paradigm that I consider to be fundamentally flawed.

Best regards,
Grahame

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Gauthier 
  To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; Dr Grahame Blackwell 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:23 AM
  Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

  Hi Grahame and all,

  you wrote:

    If you're able to complete this picture by: (a) explaining how linear photons may be passed through an aperture at differing speeds, as are those electrons (or, equivalently, how that aperture can move at different speeds relative to linear photons - given the SR view that said photons are always at speed c with respect to anything material); and (b) how linear photons similarly change their diameter (????) at different speeds (????), so as to make that situation comparable - then I'll cease to ask any further.  But until you answer the question that I've asked, rather than substituting a scenario of your own that's in no way comparable, then I can't consider my question to have been addressed, let alone resolved.

      I think we will agree that experimentally, x-rays will pass easily through the holes of a metal sheet filled with 1-inch holes while the same metal sheet will essentially block (or at least very highly attenuate) long-wavelength radio waves. So photons (if they exist) have an effective radius which is related to their wavelength. To get more specific, my model of a photon (see “Transluminal energy quantum models of the photon and the electron” ( at https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron ) has a superluminal quantum particle moving helically with speed c sqrt(2) at  45 degrees having circulating momentum P= (h/lambda) sqrt(2). This superluminal quantum particle has a longitudinal momentum component p= h/lambda (that of a photon) as well as a transverse momentum component  p=h/lambda (also because of the 45 degree helical angle.) One helical turn of the photon model has a longitudinal length of lambda, so the radius of the 45-degree helical trajectory is by simple geometry lambda/2pi . The spin of this photon model is R x Ptransverse = lambda/2pi  x   h/lambda = h/2pi = hbar, the experimental photon spin component (it can be -hbar also if the helix turns in the opposite direction.) There are other photon models of course by other photon modelers, but I think that these photon models generally have an effective radius in the range of lambda/2pi also. I also propose that my photon model (both spin-1 and spin-1/2 models) generate quantum waves in the transverse direction of motion of the photon model, which explains interference and diffraction effects of photons. 

     My relativistic electron model (as you know) is composed of a helically circulating spin-1/2 charged photon. My detailed spin-1/2 charged photon model has half the radius of my spin-1 photon model above (so it is lambda/4pi instead of lambda/2pi) and makes two helical turns instead of one turn per longitudinal wavelength. Its superluminal charged quantum particle also moves at 45 degrees, with the superluminal quantum particle carrying momentum P= (h/lambda)sqrt(2) like in the spin 1 photon model. The spin of the spin-1/2 photon model is calculated in the same way as above for the spin-1 photon model , and gives spin = R  x  Ptransverse = lambda/4pi  x  h/lambda = h/4pi = hbar/2 which is the spin 1/2 hbar of the spin-1/2 photon model. The radius of the spin !/2 charged photon of energy E can also be written as R=lambda/4pi =hc/(4pi E).

     When this superluminal spin-1/2 charged photon model is combined with my "generic” relativistic-electron-model's spin-1/2 charged photon model (which describes only the trajectory of the spin-1/2 charged photon composing an electron), the total electron model's radius (generic spin-1/2 photon's helical radius + detailed spin-1/2 photon’s helical radius) of the relativistic electron model is given by R=Ro(1/gamma^2 + 1 gamma) = (Lcompton/4pi)(1/gamma^2 +1/gamma) -->  Lcompton/(4pi gamma) = hc/(4pi E) at highly relativistic velocities where E is the total energy of the electron (or spin 1/2 charged photon) and 1/gamma^2 is dominated by 1/gamma. Why does this matter? Because the radius of the spin-1 photon model with the same energy E as the relativistic electron model decreases as Rphoton=lambda/2pi = hc/(2pi E). So the electron model's and the photon model’s radii both decrease as 1/E at high energies (compared to the electron’s rest energy), but the relativistic spin-1/2 electron model’s radius is half the spin-1 photon’s radius for the same high energy particles. 

    So there’s nothing surprising about the radius of a relativistic electron decreasing as 1/E (or as 1/gamma ,  since E=gamma mc^2 for an electron) with increasing electron energy E , since both the spin-1 and spin-1/2 photon-model radii decrease as 1/E with increasing photon energy E, and the electron is composed of a spin-1/2 charged photon. It WOULD be surprising if the electron model’s radius R in the transverse direction did NOT decrease as 1/E at highly relativistic velocities even as the radius of the spin-1/2 charged photon composing the electron model does decreases as l/E .

     Shifting gears back to your questions above: The amount of diffraction of electrons at a single-slit or double-slit apparatus (with different de Broglie wavelengths that depend on electron speed relative to the slits) or photons (with different photon wavelengths as measured in the frame of the slits) is predicted quantitatively by these experimentally-measured wavelengths (which however are related to the theoretical radii of the incoming electrons or photons in the models above.) The speed of the incoming photons will always be c as measured in the frame of the slits independent of the photon wavelength, and the speed of the incoming electrons will always be less than c.

  Richard

    On Jan 9, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com> wrote:

    Thank you kindly, Richard.

    I shall continue to persist* until the light of reason shows clearly for all to see through the cracks ever more apparent in a century-old metaphysical myth (* though not necessarily with those who prefer to remain in the dark).

    The point in question is that, even allowing for probabilistic criteria, there are likely to be rather more fast-moving electrons making it through an aperture, of the width that you define for electrons at that speed, than there will be of slower electrons that, according to your figures, are greater in cross-section than that aperture; this is a point on which you have expressed your agreement.  You are now proposing that we should view a situation in which photons are passed through an aperture as a suitable model for this scenario, that the two situations are broadly the same because they both involve waves.

    If you're able to complete this picture by: (a) explaining how linear photons may be passed through an aperture at differing speeds, as are those electrons (or, equivalently, how that aperture can move at different speeds relative to linear photons - given the SR view that said photons are always at speed c with respect to anything material); and (b) how linear photons similarly change their diameter (????) at different speeds (????), so as to make that situation comparable - then I'll cease to ask any further.  But until you answer the question that I've asked, rather than substituting a scenario of your own that's in no way comparable, then I can't consider my question to have been addressed, let alone resolved.

    Even allowing a degree of statistical variation at the individual quantum level, on the macro scale outcomes of the sort of scenario I originally described conform pretty closely to expectations as given by deterministic principles.  So if we think in terms of a few billions of electrons, rather than just one, attempting passage through that orifice at speeds 0.9c and then 0.1c - my question still stands.

    Best regards,
    Grahame

    ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Richard Gauthier
      To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; Dr Grahame Blackwell
      Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 6:14 PM
      Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

      Hello Grahame,

         Thanks for your persistence. If you stand next to or walk, run, or fly past an ongoing photon double-slit experiment with the photons supplied by a laser, your speed with respect to the experimental apparatus will not affect the fact that photons are being detected at the screen behind the slits, with the photon detection locations spatially distributed statistically according to the well-known double-slit wave interference pattern. Your speed relative to the double-slit experimental apparatus will however (according to the predictions of special relativity) affect the amount of time the experiment has been running (as measured by your wristwatch) due to relativistic time dilation. Your speed relative to the apparatus will also affect your measured distance (using your own meter sticks) between the double slits and the screen, as you go by the experiment at different speeds, due to relativistic length contraction of the double-slit apparatus as viewed by you traveling at different speeds (or at speed zero with respect to the apparatus.) 

          The same will be true if electrons are used rather than photons  in a double-slit experiment (whose slits may however have to be adjusted in size and separation because electrons are going through the slits instead of photons and the electrons' de Broglie wavelength and the photons' wavelength may be different. But the double-slit statistical wave pattern of electrons detected at the electron detection screen behind the slits will be the same for electrons (as predicted by their de Broglie wavelength for their speed relative to the slits) as for photons at a photon detection screen (using the photon wavelength for the interference pattern predictions). Whether you are standing beside the apparatus, moving with  the electrons, or have some other velocity relative to the apparatus and electrons, the double-slit statistical pattern of electrons detected at the screen will still be produced.

          According to my electron model the oncoming spin-1/2 charged photons generate the de Broglie wavelength quantum matter waves that (in some informational sense at least) would go through the double slits, so the predicted results at the screen using my electron model would be the same as the predicted results using the standard electron description. 

          The same question that you are asking about the moving electron's transverse radius versus slit aperture size for various observer velocities can also be asked about the photon’s transverse radius versus slit aperture size, as measured by different observers traveling at different speeds relative to the double-slit photon or electron apparatus. You cannot expect a more precise answer to the electron question than to the photon question if the electron is composed of a variety of photon.  The answer to the photon question and to the electron question would be basically the same. That answer would be: use the predictions of quantum wave interference and diffraction produced by the electron or photon waves to predict what pattern of electrons or photons can be detected at the screen or elsewhere in the double-slit experiment.

            Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170112/b3a3ad2c/attachment.htm>