[General] Fwd: half-photons??

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear André,

I need to find time to go through your work. While I find some items that
may lead to disagreement, I also find some very interesting points; some of
which I can independently support.

The most recent work that we (Jean-Luc Paillet and I) are exploring is the
relativistic effects on near-nuclear electrons (e.g. see attached).
Jean-Luc's extremely high kinetic energies (KE = ~ 80 MeV) calculated for
tightly bound electrons (BE = ~500keV from the Dirac equation for H) raised
doubts in my mind until I remembered that potential energy is the integral
of the relativistically distorted (greatly enhanced) Coulomb force. The
implications of this line of investigation are immense (on many levels), so
I look forward to studying your work.

Andrew M.

PS  I also want to extend these concepts to the photon creation and
lepton-pair formation models. This should lead to a mass/charge correlation
or identity.
______________________

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:29 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:

> Hi Chip,
>
> As you might expect from my previous statement, I have an unusual view of
> time dilation and length contraction.
>
> Not that I think that SR is not be self-consistent or that it has no uses,
> but I think that its doesn't completely address high relativistic
> velocities or very close charges proximity, in the latter case due to an
> issue with the concept of momentum when translational velocities are
> hindered.
>
> I find SR as good as classical Newton in the non-relativistic range, which
> covers all needs at the macroscopic level, given that zero momentum kinetic
> energy is the asymptotic limit from which energy is induced according to
> the gamma factor by the Coulomb force, and I find that it only partially
> addresses energy induction in the relativistic range (momentum correctly
> calculated, but no account taken of the related mass increase).
>
> I discussed time dilation and length contraction a little with Richard I
> think. At least I gave him my general opinion.
>
> I do not dispute either the validity of having derived the gamma factor
> from strict geometric and trigonometric considerations. I find it a clean
> derivation.
>
> What I think is the problem is the axiomatic assumption that the concepts
> of time dilation and length contraction logically emerge simply from the
> fact that the method brings into play velocities (thus time and space
> "seconds and meters") by plugging a velocities ratio into the otherwise
> dimensionless gamma factor.
>
> We tend not to pay attention to this particularity, but if you think about
> it, these dimensions simplify completely out of the gamma factor whatever
> calculation you involve it in, just like dimensionless constants such as
> alpha.
>
> What I mean is that time dilation and length contraction are axiomatic
> assumptions, not conclusions drawn from prior experimentally collected and
> analyzed data, contrary to the data collected by Kaufmann that relates the
> gamma factor to kinetic and mass energy induction in the accelerating
> electron.
>
> I always tended to keep axiomatic assumptions at arm's length, not even
> meaning that they are useless or always misleading.
>
> As for how I understand the manner in which kinetic energy accumulates in
> accelerating (and even in accelerated "meaning stabilized in some least
> action equilibrium state") charged particles, I see this energy as separate
> from the energy quantum making up the actual invariant rest mass of the
> electron, that is, as its "carrying-energy" or "carrier-photon", because
> from my understanding, it structures as a completely normal electromagnetic
> photon, but one that is stuck with the job of carrying "on its back",
> metaphorically speaking, the inert mass of the translationally inert
> electron quantum.
>
> I explain this idea in the paper titled "From Classical to Relativistic
> Mechanics via Maxwell". It stems in direct line from a derivation made by
> Paul Marmet from the Biot-Savart equation; a derivation that demonstrates
> that the magnetic field of an accelerating electron increases synchronously
> with its velocity, which directly matches Kaufmann's figures.
>
> That about summarizes what I think on these issues.
>
> Best Regards
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> *On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 06:58:19 -0500, "Chip Akins" wrote:*
>
> Hi Andre
>
> Your statements are very interesting.
>
> I had taken for granted the aspect of kinetic energy being imparted by the
> Coulomb force, and not looked into it carefully. I will do that. Thank you.
>
> Your comment … “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.”
>
> Has me wondering then, regarding your view on length contraction, time
> dilation, and how the excess kinetic energy is stored in accelerated
> particles in your view?
>
> Warm Regards
>
> Chip Akins
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *André Michaud
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:51 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Fwd: half-photons??
>
> 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>
>
> *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>
>
> *Reply-To: *Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> 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
> <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>
> *Cc:*André Michaud <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>
> 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 <grahame at starweave.com>
>
> *To:*Viv Robinson <viv at universephysics.com>;Nature of Light and Particles
> - General Discussion <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
> <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
> <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 mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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/20171101/cb579d54/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Paillet final.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 271951 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171101/cb579d54/attachment.pdf>