[General] Reply to Chip on particle radius & spin

[Chip Akins]

Hi Dr Grahame Blackwell

 

You have made some good points. 

 

At one time I thought the electron was composed of a circulating photon
which had its spin altered so that the negative portion of the electric
field lines always point outward.

 

I am no longer of that opinion. There are several reasons for the change of
opinion. Just as there are several reasons I changed my opinion about SR.

 

The energy configuration of the electron is different from that of a
confined photon in several ways. There is no reason to hold onto the full
energy configuration of the photon when modeling the electron, in fact it
leads to difficulties and errors in my opinion.  It seems that the laws
which govern the movement of energy in space support a few simple
configurations.  The electron’s rest mass/energy comes from the threshold
which space imposed on this specific configuration of energy.

 

Yes. The concept of radius is potentially misleading when discussing the
electron simply because it consists of a set of fields with a finite focus
point. But we are able to calculate the mean transport radius of the
momentum density, which is confined and rotating, and which would yield a
spin angular momentum of ½. If we assume the energy in the electron to
display the same momentum as the energy in the photon of the same energy,
then this is a pretty simple calculation.

 

I am not sure the idea that the momentum internal to the electron remains
constant when the electron is accelerated is correct. When we accelerate the
electron we add energy to the electron.  The energy we add is added directly
to the energy which is already in the electron. The new momentum term with
energy added is still Total Energy/c, so we now have more momentum, which
means the radius must be smaller to yield spin ½.

 

Consider that space only allows electrons to exist at rest at a specific
rest energy. Any electron with more energy than this is moving. In fact
space requires an electron with a specific amount of energy (above the rest
energy) to always move at the same speed. The law of inertia is built into
the particle. The confined propagation pattern of the energy in the electron
is altered from the rest condition by the addition of energy. Once energy is
added the electron must move, it can no longer be at rest. So the added
energy becomes part of the energy in the electron. Which in turn increases
the momentum of the energy in the electron.

 

It seems this increase in energy must therefore also do two things. 1)
Increase the confinement force due to increased energy. 2) Reduce the radius
to maintain a spin ½ configuration.

 

This issue of the confinement force seems to be of great importance.  For
Planck’s rule to hold, E=hv, there must be a force related to energy.  This
force is simply the equal and opposite reaction of space which opposes the
displacement which energy causes. Such a force clearly defines a particle
confinement mechanism.

 

I could continue, but this email would become quite lengthy.

 

Thank you for your thoughts and insight.  I have looked at this issue from
so many different perspectives but still find it fascinating.  For now I
still feel there are very many indications that the radius of the electron
must contract with velocity. I am not yet able to see how the pieces could
all fit any other way.

 

And no, I do not think there is a photon inside an electron.  I think the
energy of an electron can be released and become a photon. But you can’t
change the configuration of the energy of a photon, convert it to an
electron, and have it still be a photon.

 

Thoughts?

 

Chip

 

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 5:41 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: [General] Reply to Chip on particle radius & spin

 

Chip et al.,

 

With reference to your notes below on particle radius and spin: theyre's
more to say on the whole radius thing, which I will hopefully add shortly,
but I feel I should respond to your notes since I said "a few days" almost a
week ago.

 

It's been noted by others and myself before that a photon-formed electron
will have spin (/ angular momentum) by virtue of (a) the momentum of the
photon acting cyclically, and (b) the angular momentum of the photon itself.
One apparent anomaly is that, as the speed of the electron increases towards
c, the formative photon becomes increasingly linear, being fully linear at
that limiting speed (which can of course only be theoretical, a limiting
state never reached); this creates the apparent anomaly that, in the limit,
the electron will have at least the full spin-1 of its formative photon.
Even at much lesser electron speeds the photon's own spin component must be
a consideration.

 

The only possiblility by which this could be nullified (since I think we're
all agreed that a static electron will have spin-1/2 just by virtue of the
photon's linear momentum) is that the formation of the electron must surely
cancel out that photon spin component, either by the cyclic motion of the
photon acting in the opposite sense or by a rotation (spinning motion), in
the opposite sense, of the electron itself.  This has to be left for further
thought (I have some thoughts on it) - but it clearly doesn't add to the
spin of the electron which, as agreed, is 1/2 just from photon linear
momentum.

 

Back to that momentum-induced spin: the static electron has spin-1/2 due to
photon linear momentum.  As the electron moves, progressively faster, the
momentum of that photon increases due to increasing electron speed (and so
increasing photon frequency).  BUT - and this is the absolutely crucial
point - the motion of that photon is now helical, a combination of cyclic
and linear.  ONLY the cyclic component of that photon momentum will
contribute to electron spin (/ angular momentum) - the linear component
manifests as the linear momentum of the electron itself, gamma m v (where m
is rest-mass); that cyclic component is Eo/c - WHATEVER the speed of the
electron - this is quite apparent from the 'relativistic' energy-momentum
relation.  In other words, in order to maintain that spin-1/2 for the
electron, the radius of the electron also has to be kept constant, as the
cyclic linear-momentum component of the formative photon is similarly
constant.  If the radius of the electron is reduced then its angular
momentum (/ spin) will be reduced in direct proportion.  This analysis
totally supports the view that electron diameter remains invariant (which is
also supported by other considerations - more on that later).

 

[In brief: to regard the full increased momentum of the higher-frequency
photon as contributing to electron angular momentum is an
over-simplification.]

 

As Albrecht and others have observed in recent posts, experimental evidence
interpreted as electron diameter is at best an indication of cross-section
of effective consequences; diameter inferred from such experimental readings
cannot be taken as a definitive statement of particle size - there is
clearly a lot of 'wiggle room' (literally!) in this.  The observations above
on invariant electron spin would appear to be rather more precisely
definitive.

 

With regard to the 'relativistic' effective total mass of the moving
particle, I'd wholly agree that this is gamma m (where m is again rest-mass)
- but we don't need to go via spin considerations to get to that, it's
implicit in the raised frequency of that formative photon, in line with E =
mc^2 {which again is not at all dependent on SR - but that's another story].

 

Best regards,

Grahame

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Dr Grahame Blackwell <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>  

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

Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 10:10 PM

Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

 

Hi Chip,

 

Many thanks indeed for your succinct and well-presented case ('succinct' is
clearly a useful word in this discussion - as well as a good strategy!).

I need to go through this carefully and thoroughly and see how it relates to
my own understanding of the situation.  As we're all agreed, we all have
things to learn from each other and (here I DO agree with Vivian's metaphor)
each have some aspect of the elephant (in the room?) to contribute.  I'm
really looking forward to considering what you've said below and hopefully
assimilating it into a fuller understanding on my own part of the issues
that need to be taken into consideration.

 

I'll come back to you when I've processed it thoroughly (may take a few
days) and have some thoughts to offer.

 

Thanks again,

Grahame

----- Original Message ----- 

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

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

Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 9:22 PM

Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

 

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

 

  _____  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170115/f0ef8fb8/attachment.htm>