[General] Merging Classical and Quantum Physics

Sun Jan 15 21:39:58 PST 2017

Hi All,

Intriguing timing.

The apparent secret is the fundamental mass quantum h/c^2, which can be treated in a classical way - but does not have a clasical limit on its velocity. By the 
way the answer is after all 42 because the mass quantum h/c^2, is 42 magnitudes smaller than the Planck mass.

In any case I have come some way since that publication on the electron that John displayed. 

It is now possible to arrive at the electron magnetic moment with 12dp accuracy ( see attached) using those first insights - but I have no doubt the pulication wiil 
be rejected by all notable journals (as it contradicts the standard model).

Herein a snapshot, your comments would be very gratefully received.

But please hurry I am about to submit.

Andrew

========================================
Message Received: Jan 10 2017, 08:59 PM
From: "John Duffield" 
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" 
Cc: "'ANDREW WORSLEY'" 
Subject: RE: [General] Merging Classical and Quantum Physics

Chip:

I share your sentiment. Robert Close referenced Ohanian's spin article,
which I've attached. 

Chandra:

Please can you add Andrew Worsley to the group. I think he has much to
offer, as per this screenshot of one of his papers. 

Regards

JohnD

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 10 January 2017 20:34
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'

Subject: Re: [General] Merging Classical and Quantum Physics

Hi Chandra

Thank you for helping to guide the discussion toward a productive goal.

As we share our perspective on the many various aspects of the puzzle, it
has become evident to me that we must build on a good foundation, and that
the present foundations have some limiting flaws.

Not only is the subject of relativity clouding our vision of the universe,
so also are part of the foundations of QM.

So it is my opinion that we must overhaul the basis, and rebuild a version
of QM on causal principles, using painstaking effort to form an accurate
classical physics foundation for a QM which actually reflects reality.

We have been skirting about the edges of this endeavor, touching on parts of
it here and there, but Richard and others have shown some light, in various
ways, on how we may be able to accomplish many pieces of this quest.

There are times when I wish that individuals like Robert Close were also
part of this discussion group.

If you have not read his works I do strongly recommend it, a few are
attached.

Warmest Regards

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 11:45 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>
Cc: Debesh Choudhury  >
Subject: [General] Merging Classical and Quantum Physics

Dear Colleagues:

We need to maintain our collective editorial vision to guide the
direction of our discussions towards worthy and achievable goals. People
involved in this forum are putting their creative times into this
discussions; which is of great value for our collective enlightenment and
re-direction of our thinking to advance physics. Real advancement will come
only by challenging the foundational postulates behind all the working
theories; not by preserving them at all cost because they have been
"working: and they are so elegant! All of our theories eventually become
stagnant because we construct the founding postulates with our limited
knowledge. But our knowledge advances as our measuring technologies
advances. We are now at new epoch for reconstructing physics from the bottom
up. My personal opinion is that the so called Classical Physics and Quantum
Physics are much more closer to nature's ontological realities compared to
the theories of Relativity. So, our creative efforts and time will be better
served if we focus more on merging Classical and QM physics; Neither of
these two "working" fields are complete without our successfully merging
them. It is the same physical processes that are behind the emergence of all
the measured phenomena. So, they are inseparably connected at the
foundational level.

The universe is not physically "space-time" four dimensional, irrespective
of the elegance of the accepted mathematical theories. Physics Essays has a
good number of articles published over the recent few years; several of
which I have facilitated. You should down load them for reading. The latest
one is not yet published. So I am attaching it. 

It is time for us to recognize that the running time "t" is not an
operational primary physical parameter of anything in this universe; whereas
everything in this universe is built out of elementary oscillators with
their own characteristic frequencies. The frequency "f" of many entities is
accessible to us for alteration, to some extent. We invert the frequency "f"
to get temporal "period". So, conceptually, the "period" (dt = 1/f) is
accessible for alterations; but that does not imply the running time "t" is
an integral physical parameter of the universe. This has become a serious
cultural bottleneck of physics. We have achieved fantastic advances starting
with Maxwell's grand success in deriving the EM wave equation through
brilliant manipulation of the rules of differential relations of
experimentally determined four electromagnetic relations. Unfortunately, he
did not derive it from the fundamental assumption that "1/(Epsilon)" is the
electric tension [equivalent to mechanical tension "T" for a stretched
string] and "Mu" as the magnetic restoration force [equivalent to "mass per
unit length" for a stretched string]. It is now trivial to emulate the
derivation of the EM wave equation emulating the steps for deriving the wave
equation for a stretched string [see my book "Causal Physics"].

Let us initiate a discussions line on how to merge Classical and Quantum
Physics.

Sincerely,

Chandra.

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 9:53 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>
Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

Dr Graham Bell

Pardon me for still being on the soapbox.

I find myself asking why it is that scientists would favor a theory not
based on demonstrable cause and effect.

In this group we find ourselves discussing particles of matter and how they
are constructed of energy which is confined and moving at the speed of
light.

If this is how particles are made then there is an inescapable, built in,
requirement for a specific form of "relativity". 

This form of relativity is not SR. Both cannot be correct. If we had both
this form of relativity and SR then we would have to apply Lorentz
corrections twice to all motion (y^2). But experiment has shown that we can
only apply these corrections once if we want to get the right answers. 

So (if matter is made of confined light speed energy) we are left with only
one choice for what form of relativity actually exists in our universe. 

In this form of relativity, I think the speed of the slit will have no
effect on whether the electron can pass, it is only the speed of the
electron which would make a difference.

I am now understanding more of why we have not been making more progress in
our physical understanding.

I guess it is hard for us to see when we chose to wear the hallowed goggles
of ingrained mistakes.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 5:20 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>
Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

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

On Jan 9, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell  > wrote:

Just realised that my reply only went to Richard.

Since his response went to all, some may find my reply of interest.

Best regards,

Grahame

===========

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

From: Dr Grahame Blackwell  

To: Richard Gauthier  

Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 1:30 PM

Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

Hi Richard and all,

Thanks for your detailed response, most of which seems to be a re-run of
your reasoning that you've presented before rather than relating to my
specific question (more on that below). As with Chip's comments, I'll study
this with interest in the light of my own findings and understanding.

With regard to my 'aperture' question/thought-experiment: I agree completely
that of course there's a probabilistic element to passage of the electron
through the gap - that's a good point that you make. Unfortunately it
doesn't do anything to reduce the significance of my argument.

In your final para you observe: " 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"; on this we are agreed (if we accept the premise of reduced
particle size with speed - which I don't, but we'll run with that here).
If, in accordance with SR principles, we now shift to the perspective of the
electron's rest-frame, what we get is static electrons having a higher
probability of passing through a fast-moving orifice than they do of passing
through that orifice when it's moving more slowly. How do you explain that,
if it's not by virtue of that orifice increasing in size with increasing
speed? Probabilities don't simply change without circumstances changing,
and this appears to be the only credible explanation for such variation.

So I'm still waiting for the explanation as to why that aperture increases
in size with increasing speed, which appears to be a necessary condition for
satisfaction of SR reciprocity of reference frames (without which SR breaks
down). [If you have an alternative explanation for probability of passage
of static electrons through an orifice varying in this way with speed of
motion of that orifice, then of course that would be of interest.]

Best regards,

Grahame

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

From: Richard Gauthier  

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
; Dr Grahame Blackwell

Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 6:26 AM

Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

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

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at 
richgauthier at gmail.com

http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe

[ Spin_Ohanian.pdf (862.1 Kb) ]
[ RobertCLoseSpinInEMWaves.pdf (248.1 Kb) ]
[ RotationWaves_RobertClose.pdf (212.5 Kb) ]
[ OtherRelativityRobertClose.pdf (88.3 Kb) ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AAAA1111.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 34457 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170116/387ab1de/attachment.bin>