[General] Fwd: half-photons??
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Wed Nov 1 10:56:22 PDT 2017
Andre:
This looks very interesting. I've often though Einstein's equations
(Lorenz Transforms) are correct but that along with the speed of light
postulate they represent a whole world view I am not too sure of. Glad
to see an alternative. Can you provide references to Kaufman and
Abrahams work?
/"I know that the very idea that the Coulomb force induces physically
existing kinetic energy in charges appears strange to most, but I found
that so much can be explained with this idea that I just can't see how
physical reality could be otherwise." /Are you talking pure electricity
or mass-charged particles. Is not the electromagnetic vector potential
related to momentum i.e. kinetic energy?
Is there any concept that charge and mass need a force to bind them
together in your idea?/
/
Chip: that “/Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected by any means./”
does this statement not apply only to a limited class of experiments.
Can we not say we detecting our motion relative to the cosmic background
by simply looking out is legitimate?
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 10/31/2017 8:50 PM, André Michaud wrote:
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> Thank you for your welcoming message. I remember that we crossed paths
> before on ResearchGate, but I don't recall the specifics.
>
> You really are going to the crux of the matter with this question "How
> do you view and understand the causes for “relativity”?"
>
> Fist time I have to actually answer it so directly.
>
> Contrary to most (seems to me, from decades of interaction with
> others) my first contact with relativity was through a book by Henri
> Poincare "La science et l'hypothèse", which led me directly to study
> the experiments carried out by Walter Kaufmann that Max Abraham
> interpreted, both of whom, I learned much later, got the gamma factor
> idea from Woldemar Voigt with whom Abraham had contacts, and who seems
> to have been to first to establish the concept.
>
> From Kaufmann's experiments with relativistic electrons in a bubble
> chamber, the gamma factor simply gives the exact measure of how much
> kinetic energy is induced in accelerating charged particles with
> velocity as they are accelerated by the ambient electric and magnetic
> fields he used to control the moving electrons during his experiments,
> as demonstrated by his results, half of which converts to a velocity
> related momentary mass increment which is measurable transversally,
> which is what the Kaufmann experiments demonstrate,
>
> Only later did I study Einstein's SR concept grounded on the idea that
> the gamma factor applies to time dilation and length contraction.
> Since I already was in agreement with Abraham and Poincare's views
> about the Kaufmann experiment, I always stuck with this view as
> matching more closely physical reality.
>
> So to me, "relativity" simply relates to the fact that energy is
> induced non-linearly (according to the gamma factor) with velocity of
> charged particles by the Coulomb force, or with proximity between
> charge particles also due to the Coulomb force. It has no other
> implications from my perspective.
>
> I know that the very idea that the Coulomb force induces physically
> existing kinetic energy in charges appears strange to most, but I
> found that so much can be explained with this idea that I just can't
> see how physical reality could be otherwise.
>
> Best Regards
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
>
>
> /On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:18:58 -0700, Richard Gauthier wrote:/
>
> Hi Andrew,
> I forwarded the following from Chip on the discussion list.
> Richard
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> *From: *"Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>>
>> *Subject: **Re: [General] half-photons??*
>> *Date: *October 31, 2017 at 4:00:37 AM PDT
>> *To: *"'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> *Reply-To: *Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> Andre
>> I am delighted that you might participate in our discussion group. I
>> have read some of your work and comments on ResearchGate and find you
>> to be a thoughtful, intelligent contributor to the process of discovery.
>> Thank you for forwarding some of your thoughts through Richard. I am
>> hoping you will join our group so that we can all benefit from your
>> insights as well.
>> As you have pointed out, the postulate that “/Absolute uniform motion
>> cannot be detected by any means./” Does not mean that “/the concept
>> of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning/”
>> For if matter is made of energy, and energy always takes the
>> propagating form, whether as light or confined to create matter, then
>> it would be very difficult indeed for us to detect our motion through
>> the medium (ether). This situation would also cause the appearance of
>> relativity.
>> So, there is another view, which is more causal than Einstein’s,
>> where “relativity”*is the result of the medium of space*and the way
>> energy creates matter and light.
>> Is this your opinion as well? How do you view and understand the
>> causes for “relativity”?
>> Chip
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>> Behalf Of*Richard Gauthier
>> *Sent:*Friday, October 27, 2017 3:38 PM
>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> *Cc:*André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [General] half-photons??
>>
>>
>> Hello Grahame, Vivian, Chip, John W, Martin, Andrew and all,
>>
>>
>> Here are forwarded some more thoughtful comments/responses
>> fromAndréthat I think are relevant to your SR discussions.
>>
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> André:
>>
>>
>> Thank you for forwarding the discussion between Vivian, Grahame and
>> Chip. I must say that over the years, I have come across most of
>> similar comments about SR and various flavors of photon and
>> electron inner structure proposals, either just reading about them
>> or partaking in the discussions.
>>
>>
>> I appreciate you sending me such updates. Causes me to think of
>> these issues from a fresh angle. Thank you for your offer to
>> actively join the group, but I prefer to wait until one or other
>> member wishes to exchange with me. As previously mentioned, I am
>> quite happy just contributing my ideas to you, and let you be the
>> judge of whether or not you communicate my thoughts in the meantime
>> if you deem useful in context. As far as I am concerned, I am
>> discussing with you personally, simply because you are interested
>> in my opinion.
>>
>> I have some comments of my own regarding SR. It seems to be
>> generally assumed that SR is completely electromagnetism compliant.
>> I was once presented with this paper by Richard E. Haskell, as
>> giving the full derivation of all Maxwell's equations in addition
>> to Lorentz force from special relativity and Coulomb's law:
>>
>> http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/haskell/Special%20Relativity%20and%20Maxwells%20Equations.pdf
>>
>> I find it very well done and indeed clearly explaining SR and its
>> origins.
>>
>> Here are some remarks that came to mind as I read it:
>>
>> On page 10, Einstein's first postulate is stated as follows:
>> Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected by any means. The
>> following conclusion by the author regarding this postulate seems
>> to be totally inappropriate to me: "This is to say that the concept
>> of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning." I fail to see how
>> this conclusion can logically derive so straightforwardly from the
>> stated first postulate.
>>
>> In my own book (Electromagnetic Mechanics of Elementary Particles:
>> 2nd Edition--Richard), metaphorically speaking of course, as
>> formulated, this first postulate is a totally arbitrary axiomatic
>> assertion not grounded on experimentally observed data about
>> physical reality. Consequently, it is an invalid premise to draw
>> any conclusion about physical reality. Also, I am positive that
>> absolute uniform motion of free electromagnetic energy in vacuum
>> has been detected and confirmed out of any doubt. Its uniform
>> velocity has also been derived by Maxwell from second partial
>> derivatives of the equations of Ampere and Gauss, which themselves
>> were established from experimental data 40 years before.
>>
>> His second postulate (on page 10 also) (light is propagated in
>> empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of
>> the source), is in reality Maxwell's rightfully arrived at
>> conclusion 40 years previously from the second partial derivatives
>> from which he established the speed of light as being c, which is a
>> conclusion that Einstein perfectly understood.
>>
>> In reality, this is not an axiomatic postulate as is being assumed,
>> but a well established conclusion derived in direct line from
>> equations themselves established from experimental data by Gauss
>> and Ampere.
>>
>> So there is no requirement to "modify our ideas about the nature of
>> time" as stated on page 10 to accommodate the confirmed fact that
>> light travels at uniform velocity c in vacuum.
>>
>> Then comes the description of two famous different inertial frames
>> each with an observer, moving at different fixed velocities both
>> stuck with the task of seeing the same light as moving at a
>> constant velocity.
>>
>> First, naturally occurring inertial motion at fixed velocities of
>> material bodies is impossible in physical reality, so my view is
>> that this set up cannot possibly lead to any valid conclusions with
>> respect to physical reality. If a body is not in immediate contact
>> with another body, it will accelerate, so its velocity will
>> constantly change. If in contact with another body, it will
>> accelerate with this second body and its velocity will also
>> constantly change.
>>
>> Second, whatever opinion these two observers may have about the
>> velocity of light will not change its actual physical velocity.
>>
>> You can see that the squared velocities ratio of the Lorentz factor
>> is obtained from strictly mathematical geometric considerations
>> established at equation (5) involving time to axiomatically
>> associate the Lorentz factor to time with equation (6).
>>
>> You will also observe the same establishment of the Lorentz gamma
>> factor for the so-called "length contraction" with equation (14)
>> strictly from geometric and algebraic consideration, which is not a
>> derivation from physically obtained data, but from a construct
>> obtained by establishing a geometric set up that will produce this
>> relation between the "mathematical" concept of length and the gamma
>> factor.
>>
>> I must say here that most of my life, I had been convinced that the
>> gamma factor proper had been derived from electromagnetic equations
>> by Lorentz and not from this geometric/algebraic mathematical set up.
>>
>> The reason is that I have read so much material since the 50's that
>> I didn't recall where I read about its derivation from
>> electromagnetic equations, or even if this was a false memory. I
>> tried to relocate the source after I derived it myself from an
>> electromagnetic equation (equation 66 in the following paper,
>> derived from equation 51, itself a conversion from strictly
>> electromagnetic equation 34), to compare results, but couldn't
>> re-locate it. I then assumed by default that it was Lorentz who had
>> made the original derivation from electromagnetism and that I just
>> did't succeed in re-locating the source document:
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282353551_From_Classical_to_Relativistic_Mechanics_via_Maxwell
>>
>> You can verify that from the electromagnetic perspective the "gamma
>> factor" derived in this paper has nothing to do with length or time
>> contraction, only with charged particles energy increase with
>> velocity (and with proximity between charged particles according to
>> the Coulomb law).
>>
>> I then investigated further and found that all past derivations of
>> the gamma factor had been made from this geometric/algebraic set up
>> that was initially established by Woldemar Voigt in 1887,
>>
>> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2001ChJPh..39..211E&link_type=ARTICLE&db_key=PHY&high=
>>
>> who had epistolary contacts with Larmor, Lorentz and Poincare, who
>> also are credited with developing the method. I finally relocated
>> where I had gotten the idea that one of them had also derived it
>> from electromagnetism.
>>
>> It was due to Walter Kaufmann's demonstration that the mass of the
>> electron varied with velocity according to the relativistic
>> equation during his experimentation leading to the identification
>> of the transverse relativistic mass of moving electrons, that made
>> use of the gamma factor developed from the geometry/algebraic
>> method, but that finally no-one seemed to have actually derived the
>> gamma factor directly from an electromagnetic equation, before my
>> own derivation in the above paper.
>>
>> If on your side, you know of such a derivation directly from an
>> electromagnetic equation, I would really appreciate a link to the
>> paper, or a reference to the paper if not available online, so I
>> can compare methods.
>>
>> All of this is meant to emphasize that this derivation of the gamma
>> factor from an electromagnetic equation confirms that from the
>> electromagnetism perspective, in physical reality the gamma factor
>> is related strictly to energy increase with velocity of charged
>> particles such as the electron, and under no circumstance to time
>> dilation or so-called "length contraction".
>>
>> I place the word "so-called" before "length contraction", because
>> there is a real problem with the very concept of length contraction
>> when applied to physically existing bodies.
>>
>> I occasionally give the following example to bring to mind the
>> immense distances that separate all charged particles within the
>> atoms of which every macroscopic body is made.
>>
>> If a hydrogen atom was upsized so that its central proton became as
>> large as the Sun, then the electron would stabilize as far as
>> Neptune's orbit, which would make a hydrogen atom as large as the
>> whole solar system. This means that distances between the charged
>> particles within atoms making up macroscopic bodies are relatively
>> astronomical.
>>
>> Given that all bodies are made of such empty structures, the very
>> concept of "length" can be seen as meaningless with respect to its
>> physical composition, and that what would be involved when the
>> possible "length contraction" of a macroscopic body is considered,
>> would really minimally be a "distance contraction" between the
>> electronic escorts and the nuclei of the constituting atoms.
>>
>> This being said, such distance contraction would apply by structure
>> not only to the length of macroscopic bodies, but also to their
>> other dimensions, which are width and thickness.
>>
>> Given the assertion that SR is deemed electromagnetism compliant,
>> such shortening of the distances between electronic escorts and
>> nuclei within bodies subjected to "length contraction" should
>> involve a corresponding energy increase within the mass of the body
>> due to the Coulomb law at play as a function of the inverse square
>> of the contracting distances between charged electrons of the
>> electronic escorts and the charged nuclei.
>>
>> But, nowhere in SR is there a provision for this energy increase in
>> the contracting mass of bodies moving at relativistic velocities,
>> which is a gaping hole in the SR theory that seems not to have
>> attracted any attention.
>>
>> So, if SR does not account for this energy increase mandated by the
>> Coulomb force, this means that SR is not Maxwell equations
>> compliant, because Gauss's equation for the electric field, which
>> is Maxwell's first equation, is a simple generalization of
>> Coulomb's law, which seems not to be applicable to bodies
>> sustaining length contraction according to SR.
>>
>> Well, I hope this makes some sense to you, and if you have input
>> about a prior derivation of the gamma factor from an
>> electromagnetic equation, I really would appreciate.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> André
>>
>>> On Oct 26, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell
>>> <grahame at starweave.com <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>> wrote:
>>> Dear Vivian (et al.)
>>> On looking back over my email (below)just sent, I'm concernedthat my
>>> reference to "those who use language in such a way as to bolster
>>> their arguments" might possibly be misconstrued as a reference to
>>> yourself. Please be assured that this was not my intention, I
>>> certainly don't regard you as having done this, I fully appreciate
>>> that your usage was to describe a particular situation rather than
>>> to justify a line of argument. My point about precise use of
>>> language stands, and of course applies to all of us; my point about
>>> misuse of words to strengthen an argument was with reference to a
>>> wholly hypothetical situation which I cannot imagine applying to
>>> anyone in this group.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Grahame
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> *From:*Dr Grahame Blackwell <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
>>>> *To:*Viv Robinson <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>;Nature of Light
>>>> and Particles - General Discussion
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> *Sent:*Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:58 PM
>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] half-photons??
>>>> Dear Vivian,
>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>> First and foremost I need to say that I haven’t*ever*“chosen to
>>>> misrepresent” you; that’s the sort of emotive language that I find
>>>> quite unhelpful.To make assumptions regarding the intentions of
>>>> others, and then state those assumptions as fact, is always a risky
>>>> business!I have simply described my understanding of what you have
>>>> said as it seems to me – and hopefully always made it clear that
>>>> this is what I’m doing.[Why on earth would I*/choose/*to
>>>> misrepresent you?]
>>>> Second, with regard to my being “pedantic” over your choice of
>>>> words: as I’ve said, I’m quite relaxed over the use of “crumpled”
>>>> (though I see it quite differently); however I cannot be so casual
>>>> about your use of the word “requires” when your proposed
>>>> ‘requirement’ is in fact just one of at least two options.For me
>>>> this goes right to the heart of scientific rigour: if, for example,
>>>> a medical researcher stated that onset of a particular medical
>>>> condition ‘requires’ an elevated temperature of five degrees above
>>>> the norm, when in fact under some circumstances this need not be
>>>> the case, the consequences could be catastrophic.
>>>> Many parallel situations can be envisaged, in almost every branch
>>>> of science.I’d go so far as to say that I wouldn’t be able to have
>>>> a meaningful discussion with anyone who used language in such a way
>>>> to bolster their own scientific arguments.Certainly a view of the
>>>> nature of Relativity, or of the structure of photons, that (in my
>>>> view) misuses language in this way would be of absolutely no
>>>> interest to me.If this makes me a pedant then, yes, I plead guilty
>>>> as charged – and I believe that science would be the worse for it
>>>> if others investigating fundamental aspects of our universe didn’t
>>>> take the same view.
>>>> I agree 100% with your proposal that the circulating-photon model
>>>> of an electron (at a constant light-speed) accounts fully for
>>>> observed phenomena attributed to Relativity; this is a point that
>>>> Chip and I have both been quite vocal about pretty much since we
>>>> each joined this group (as I understand your position on this Chip
>>>> – forgive me if that’s incorrect in any way) and that I’ve been
>>>> writing about for nigh on 20 years.This causes a changed
>>>> perception/experience of time, distance and object dimensions
>>>> precisely in line with the observations that are put down to
>>>> Relativity.In this respect Relativity*/is/*a thing, and it’s fully
>>>> explainable as such.
>>>> However this explanation stops short –*/well/*short – of supporting
>>>> the proposal that spacetime is of itself, by its nature,
>>>> ‘relativistic’ – i.e. that all inertial states of motion are
>>>> equivalent, that there is no one unique such state of motion that
>>>> can be termed ‘objectively static’, from which all other states of
>>>> motion may be measured.In fact, it renders such a proposal
>>>> superfluous, since all observed phenomena can be fully explained
>>>> without introducing this additional constraint on the nature of
>>>> reality.[I include in this the apparent reciprocity of
>>>> ‘relativistic’ effects, which can be derived directly from this
>>>> particle model.]
>>>> It is*/that/*‘Principle of Relativity’ – the objective equivalence
>>>> of all inertial states of motion – for which I see
>>>> absolutely*/no/*causation proposed (I'm talking generally here, not
>>>> just about your work).Certainly the circling-photon model (on which
>>>> we appear to be agreed) offers no causal explanation for such a
>>>> proposed phenomenon – at the same time as explaining very clearly
>>>> why such a proposal is unnecessary to explain ‘relativistic’ effects.
>>>> So, then: I thoroughly applaud both experimental evidence and
>>>> mathematical rationale in support of any theory – and (as I
>>>> observed to John W) I have never questioned either of these in
>>>> respect of SR or GR, in fact I have endorsed them to the
>>>> hilt.However, what I am saying, and what is fully supported by
>>>> logical analysis of the circling-photon particle model, is that
>>>> these experiments and math are respectively illustrating and
>>>> documenting*/perceived/*reality rather than*/objective/*reality.If
>>>> one recognises that effects attributed to Relativity are, in the
>>>> main,*/observer/*effects (including mechanical/atomic ‘observers’
>>>> such as clocks), coupled with objective consequences such as the
>>>> electromagnetic foreshortening of objects in motion
>>>> (Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction), then in my view we have a pretty
>>>> complete theory!
>>>> Where we come a-cropper is when we (i.e. mainstream science) insist
>>>> on tacking on a wholly unnecessary ‘addendum’ to the effect that
>>>> reality*/is/*in fact that strange place that our motion-affected
>>>> senses and instruments tell us it is – that this train*/is/*longer
>>>> (not just*/seems/*longer) for the guard on it than it is for the
>>>> trackside workman, that your watch*/is/*going slow in respect of my
>>>> reference frame whilst at the same time mine*/is/*going slow in
>>>> respect of your reference frame.
>>>> This distinction between ‘seems’ and ‘is’ may appear to be a bit
>>>> irrelevant, but in fact it’s absolutely crucial if we’re to
>>>> progress in our practical understanding of the universe.From
>>>> inertia to gravitation, from our handling of time to our handling
>>>> of space (and so arguably for the future viability of our species),
>>>> every new physical theory is required to conform to this
>>>> frame-invariance constraint.Since that constraint on physical laws
>>>> is arguably totally illusory, we are (it very much seems to me)
>>>> placing unnecessary obstacles in our path to future discovery and
>>>> endeavour – ultimately, in our path to the stars.
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Grahame
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>>> Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier 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">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>> Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier 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">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20171101/01ce1a21/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list