[General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"

[Ray Fleming]

Richard,

The solution of the superluminal velocity problem is one if perspective. If
we consider a single dipole within the photon (or half photon pair) in its
own rotating reference frame, the speed of light is not exceeded.

This is an observer problem not a physics problem. These sorts of issues
pop up when dealing with rotating reference frames. Maxwell's false
conjection that lead to the MMX similarly failed to recognize the photons
true reference frames.

As for energy, that is another misconception. When dealing with photons we
use the total energy by convention, the central dipole energy plus the
field energy. The same is true with mass-energy (mc2).

When dealing with kinetic energy either electric or mechanical we ignore
the field energy by convention, so we divide everything by 2.

The problem comes when we mix kinetic energy without the field energy with
the actual total energy.

Ray


On 29 Nov 2017 2:53 pm, "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello André (and all),
>
>   What you seem to be saying is that the transverse velocity component of
> each of the two charges in your tri-space composite photon model changes
> from zero to c and back to zero (twice) in one transverse cycle from your
> electric space to your magnetic space, while the photon as a whole moves
> forward with a longitudinal velocity of c in normal space. This tells me
> that the minimum total vector velocity (the transverse velocity component
> combined vectorially with the longitudinal velocity) of the charge during a
> transverse cycle is c (when the transverse component of the charge's
> velocity is zero), while the maximum total vector velocity of the charge
> (combining its its maximum transverse velocity component c with the
> constant longitudinal velocity component c) is c sqrt(2). I don’t see how
> compartmentalizing your composite photon’s total motion into three mutually
> orthogonal spaces (where the component of the charge’s speed is less than
> or equal to c in each of these three component spaces) gets you “off the
> hook” from this resultant superluminal speed of up to c sqrt(2) of the two
> charges in your composite photon model as a whole.
>
> I can't get past the words of your kinetic energy formula explanation
> which leads to a particle kinetic energy that is twice the standard,
> experimentally accepted (and experimentally verified over many decades
> of high-energy physics research) relativistic kinetic energy formula of
> *KE=mo c2 (*γ*-1)* . Your derived formula *KE=2mo c2 (*γ*-1) *gives, in
> the limit of very small velocities v << c, the formula KE= 2 x 1/2 mv^2 =
> mv^2 while the standard relativistic KE formula in the limit of very small
> velocities v << c gives KE = 1/2 mv^2  , the standard non-relativistic
> kinetic energy formula which is equal to the work W= Fxd done on a particle
> to give it that kinetic energy 1/2 mv^2.  Where did your extra 1/2 mv^2 of
> energy come from in your formula (apparently representing a serious
> violation of conservation of energy)? And also, where does your extra 1/2
> mv^2 of kinetic energy of the particle go when the particle slows down to
> v=0 and gives up its standard kinetic energy 1/2 mv^2 to its environment?
>
> Yes, I think that kinetic energy is made of something physical (in its
> broadest sense.) But the word “substance” — from Latin “substantia”=
> “being, essence” -- like the word “matter” from Latin “mater”= “mother"),
> is a metaphysical term that cannot be clearly defined by physics
> experiments. Even the word “physical” is from Latin “physica” = “things
> related to nature” and is a metaphysical term.
>
> Are you familiar with the demonstration that the well-known relativistic
> energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 for a particle of mass m
> is mathematically equivalent to (E/c)^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2  where mc can be
> interpreted as the transverse circling internal linear momentum of a
> resting particle of mass m, p is the particle's longitudinal linear
> momentum p=gamma mv and E/c  is the Pythagorean total linear momentum P=E/c
> = gamma mc of the particle?  These relations can be seen in Figure 1 of my
> spin-1/2 charged half-photon electron model in my article at
> https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_
> 2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength . What is called a
> charged photon in this figure and article I am now calling a charged
> half-photon. Nothing is superluminal in this figure.
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 28, 2017, at 9:20 AM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard and all,
>
> I understand that your composite photon model involves no extra energy
> associated with the internal superluminal motion of the charged
> half-photons.
>
> But the thing is (not meant here as a negative point) that by structure,
> in your model, the half photons longitudinally progress on spiral paths at
> some distance from the axis of motion of the linearly moving photon, they
> have to move "by structure" at a velocity slightly higher than c otherwise,
> they could not keep up with the axial linear motion that is defined as
> being c. Just geometric logic irrespective of any math considerations.
>
> I'll try to explain more clearly about what I understand of kinetic
> energy, but to remain with the photon structure, by contrast to your
> "longitudinally" spiralling half photons (moving charges), in the
> trispatial model, the two charges are oscillating "transversally" with
> respect to the direction of motion, which is in sync with the established
> understanding that electromagnetic energy oscillates transversally.
>
> As the related "kinetic energy" of which the half photons are made
> cyclically transfers from twin-particle state (charges state) to single
> magnetic particle state in the trispatial model, it accelerates from zero
> transverse velocity at maximum transverse extent to transverse velocity c
> at mid transfer to zero transverse velocity again when completely
> transferred to magnetostatic space. Then in reverse motion, from zero
> transverse velocity at maximum magnetic spherical extent to transverse
> velocity c at mid transfer to twin electric charges state to zero
> transverse velocity at maximum half photon state. Ready for the next
> transverse reciprocating cycle again. All the while, the complete photon
> translationally progresses at c, propelled by the other half of the
> photon's total quantum of energy, that remains permanently unidirectional
> while the transversally oriented half oscillates.
>
> This is why c is never exceeded in the trispatial model.
>
> Now to the nature of kinetic energy.
>
> You mention that when I call kinetic energy a “substance”, this confuses
> you.
>
> I know. I observed that it confuses everybody.
>
> I have a question that may help you seeing what I mean. In you own photon
> model, what do you think your half photons are made of really? Charges,
> would you say! What are charges then? We don't really know.
>
> But whatever what we name "charges" may be, don't you think that a
> physically existing "substance" has to be involved, that they must be
> quantities of "something" that physically exists?
>
> Now what could this "something" be?
>
> Remember that we talked about the 13.6 eV electromagnetic photon that is
> evacuated when an electron is captured by an ionized hydrogen atom (a
> proton)?
>
> You certainly observed already that this amount of energy corresponds
> exactly to the kinetic energy that can be calculated due to the
> acceleration of the electron until it reaches the velocity related to the
> Bohr radius, which is 2187691.253 m/s classical (2187647.561 m/s
> relativistic).
>
> Since the electron is now "immobilized", we know that this energy is
> indeed the energy corresponding to the maximum momentum that the electron
> had before "hitting the wall" so to speak. Now instead of converting to
> "potential energy" as classical physics assume*, "we observe" that it
> escapes as an electromagnetic photon*.
>
> This means that unidirectional momentum related kinetic energy that
> propelled the electron is of the same nature as electromagnetic energy, and
> that in fact the complete complement of any electromagnetic quantum is
> actual kinetic energy "*that-did-not-convert-to-potential-energy*", half
> of which transfers to transverse orientation to henceforth
> electromagnetically oscillate, in transverse reciprocating motion (in the
> trispatial geometry), and spiralling about the axis of motion in your
> model.
>
> This is why I concluded that "kinetic" energy is a "physically existing
> substance".
>
> When 1.022 MeV photon sare made to convert to massive electro-positron
> pairs, this means that even the mass of electrons and positrons can also
> only be the very same substance also. What else could it be since the
> mother photon was entirely made of only this kinetic energy substance.
> Whatever it may turn out to really be in reality. Whatever it really is, it
> has to be a really and physically existing "substance", that we need to
> study. That's my conclusion.
>
> Now to the extra fact or 2 that you mention,
>
> You mention "*KE=mo c2 (*γ*-1)      where **mo *is usually just written*
> m*"
>
>  To remain strictly consistent with mathematical representation, m is the
> relativistic mass of the electron that was measured by transverse
> interaction by Kaufmann 100 years ago, which is made of  *mo  +
> [KE=mo c2 (*γ*-1)]/c2*. Here *[KE=mo c2 (*γ*-1)]/c2* is the relativistic
> mass "increment".
>
> Now *KE=mo c2 (*γ*-1)* also happens to also be equal to the
> unidirectional momentum related kinetic energy amount that propels the
> electron at velocity v (embedded in the gamma factor).
>
> Consequently, the complete complement of kinetic energy that an electron
> possesses at any velocity in excess of its own mo energy value is
> *KE=mo c2 (*γ*-1) + [KE=mo c2 (*γ*-1)]/c2* both of which physically exist
> (my conclusion), and can be summarily calculated with:
>
> *KE=2mo c2 (*γ*-1)*
>
> This stems from correlating the Kaufmann electron deflection experiment
> with Marmet's discovery that the magnetic field of a moving electron
> increases in sync with its velocity. Explained at the beginning of the
> "From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell" paper, but as
> analyzed completely in this other paper:
>
> http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/2257
>
>
> You ask: "*Are you claiming that a moving massive particle has twice as
> much kinetic energy as is predicted by standard relativity kinematics?*"
>
> My answer is YES.
>
> Grounded on the Kaufmann experiment PLUS Marmet's converging derivation,
> that is one half remaining unidirectional (momentum kinetic energy) plus
> the other equal amount transferring to transverse orientation to henceforth
> oscillate electromagnetically in reciprocal swing between twin component
> electric and single component magnetic states, displaying omnidirectional
> inertia (mass) like the invariant rest mass mo of the electron.
>
> Hope this helps understanding how I see "kinetic energy".
>
> Best Regards
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 22:15:30 -0800, Richard Gauthier wrote:
>
> HelloAndré (and all),
> Thank you.
>
> I want to clarify that in my composite photon model, there is no extra
> energy associated with the internal superluminal motion of the spin-1/2
> charged half-photons composing the composite photon model, whose
> superluminal energy quanta both move helically at c sqrt(2). The energy of
> each half-photon is given by E=hf = h/lambda where f is the frequency of
> the half-photon (here E is not the energy of the composite photon which is
> 2E) and lambda is the wavelength of the half photon. Remember that the
> half-photon makes two helical turns per half-photon wavelength, so its
> apparent frequency 2f (due to its double-looping, like the zitterbewegung
> frequency) is twice its energy-related frequency f, and its apparent
> wavelength lambda/2 (due to its double-looping per wavelength lambda) is
> half of its energy-related wavelength lambda.
>
> I’ve been working on understanding your tri-space approach to the photon
> and electron. I am trying to understand your approach to kinetic energy of
> a massive particle. In one place you call kinetic energy a “substance”,
> which confused me. What does this mean? Is this substance different from
> energy?
>
> Also, in standard special relativity kinematics, the formula for the
> kinetic energy of a massive particle is
>
> *KE=moc2(*γ*-1) where**mo*is usually just written* m*
>
> while in your article "From “Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via
> Maxwell”athttp://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-
> Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197
>
> you write: "So from equation (42) we can now directly calculate the
> associated kinetic energy even if we know only the relativistic velocity of
> a particle
>
> *K=2moc2(gamma-1)* (43)
>
> You write the same equation in a slightly different form in your article
> “On De Broglie’s Double-particle Photon Hypothesis”
>
> at: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-
> doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.php?aid=70373:
>
> “ From equation (39) can be derived the following equation that allows
> calculating the kinetic energy that must be communicated to an electron for
> it to move at relativistic velocity v, when only this velocity is known:
>
> x = 2a(γ-1) (40)
>
> Where “x” is the added kinetic energy, “a” is the energy making up the
> rest mass of the electron and γ is the Lorentz gamma factor. Any
> relativistic velocity plugged into the gamma factor will allow obtaining
> the amount of kinetic energy required for the particle to move at this
> velocity.”
>
> So my question is, where does this extra factor of 2 come from in
> thetheoretical derivation of your formula for the relativistic kinetic
> energy of a massive particle as a function of gamma, compared to the
> standard relativistic formula for kinetic energy, which is well-established
> experimentally?Are you claiming that a moving massive particle has twice
> as much kinetic energy as is predicted by standard relativity kinematics?
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Nov 27, 2017, at 4:51 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I agree with you here that this is an incremental progress over the
> previous view, Moreover it is now in sync with de Broglie's original twin
> halph-photons hypothesis.
>
> As I already mentioned, possibly the best that can be had in 4D geometry.
>
> Note that In the trispatial geometry, all of this is accomplished without
> the energy involved ever exceeding the speed of light.
>
> Best Regards
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:15:08 -0800, Richard Gauthier wrote:
>
> HI Ray (and all),
> You are right that an electron logically can’t be composed of a photon
> which is composed of an electron-positron pair (or other dipole particle
> structure) where each half of the dipole is composed of a photon which is
> composed of… ad infinitum. I think that an electron that is composed from
> its beginning as a spin-1/2 charged half-photon (not a photon) solves this
> logical dilemma. I think most of us started out thinking that an electron,
> if it is composed of a light-speed object, must be composed of a uncharged
> photon of spin 1 which somehow curls up to become a charged spin-1/2
> electron with rest mass m. But I now think that this approach has become a
> dead-end. Rather, a pre-electron (a spin-1/2 charged half-photon) produced
> with pre-positron in e-p pair production from a sufficiently energetic
> spin-1 photon (having net charge zero) starts out already electrically
> charged and having spin 1/2, so it doesn’t have to change from a spin-1
> uncharged particle into a a spin-1/2 charged particle by curling up and
> losing half its spin while gaining its charge and mass due to its being
> curled up in a double-loop. Rather the spin-1/2 charged photon retains the
> spin-1/2 and electric charge e and inertial mass (and its rest mass m) that
> it started with coming (with a positron) from a photon in e-p pair
> production. This light-speed (in its longitudinal direction) charged
> spin-1/2 particle composing an electron is not curled up anyway when the
> electron it composes is moving very highly relativistically at v < c. Then
> the light-speed particle composing the relativistic electron retains its
> charge e, its spin-1/2 and its mass m while moving at light-speed c
> (longitudinally) along its helical trajectory with forward helical angle
> theta given by cos (theta) = v/c and with an electron velocity (along its
> helical axis) of v < c. The spin-1/2 charged photon maintains its spin-1/2
> at highly relativistic velocities because it retains the same internal
> superluminal speed c sqrt (2) (and transverse momentum component value p=
> h/lambda and its helical radius value R= lambda/4pi) that it had while
> composing the composite photon from which it emerged in e-p pair
> production. Only now lambda is much shorter when the electron is very
> highly relativistic. So at highly relativist velocities the charged
> photon’s spin remains Sz = R x p = lambda/4pi x h/lambda = h/4pi = hbar/2 =
> spin-1/2 . To me this understanding represents real, if incremental,
> progress in understanding photons and electrons (and particles in general.)
> Richard
>
> On Nov 27, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Ray Fleming <rayrfleming at gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard,
>
> As I mentioned. The De Broglie quote in your recent paper expresses that
> the half-wavelength photons are Dirac Fermions. So a photon can be treated
> a a series of pairs of Dirac Fermions.
>
> So I see these models of an electron as a photon are saying that the
> electron is made of a pair of Dirac Fermions while not showing why the
> electron is matter with negative charge rather than the opposite. Then
> there is the circularity issue an electron is made of a photon which is an
> electron-positron pair, which are both photons, which are both
> electron-positron pairs,...
>
> Of course Dirac Fermions will behave like Dirac Fermions, but unless we
> break the circular logic we cannot achieve anything definitive. For my part
> I see *The* Dirac Fermion, the electron as what is fundamental. That
> said, I do not have a model for it. I do appreciate all the fine work on
> the problem.
>
> One thing a lot of papers have in common is talking about the point like
> nature of an electron, while several including my own derivation of
> electron mass show that it relates to a size around the Compton wavelength.
> If we are to understand the true structure of an electron we need to
> perform scattering experiments with electrons and photons rather than
> protons, and at lower energies that allow us to see what is going on an the
> Compton scale. As I say in a couple of my books, proton scattering to find
> the size of an electron is simply an attempt to find the diameter of the
> center of a hole.
>
> Ray
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello John, Martin, Vivian, Chip,André, Grahame, Albrecht, Rayand all,
>>
>> Three of our members, that I know of, have derived the de Broglie
>> wavelength in different ways from our double-looping-photon-like-object
>> electron models having spin-1/2: John (and Martin), Vivian and myself. I
>> don’t know if Grahame, André, Chip or Albrecht have derived the de
>> Broglie wavelength from their electron models (and if so, where), but I
>> would like to know.
>> The three de Broglie wavelength derivations from the above electron
>> models are at:     1. Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?”,
>> J.G. Williamson and M.B.van der Mark, http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf,
>> section 6, pp15-16.
>>
>> 2 “A Proposal on the Structure and Properties of an Electron”, VNE
>> Robinson,https://www.academia.edu/10819172/A_Proposal_on_
>> the_Structure_and_Properties_of_an_Electron , section 9, p.13
>>
>> 3. “Electrons are spin 1/2 charged photons generating the de Broglie
>> wavelength”, Richard Gauthier,https://www.academia.
>> edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_
>> generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength, section 11, pp 9-11. What I call
>> “charged photons” in my article I am now calling “charged half-photons”,
>> but this does not affect the derivation.
>>
>> Since we are focusing on the validity of the de Broglie wavelength
>> relation in this email thread, I would like to know if anyone, besides
>> myself, sees any serious error in any of the three de Broglie wavelength
>> derivations above. If there is an error in the derivation in my electron
>> model, I would certainly like to know what it is, and I think that the
>> others feel the same about theirs. Thanks!
>>
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> On Nov 24, 2017, at 3:41 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:
>> Hello Chip,
>>
>> You touch an important point by highlighting that at α**c*velocity,
>> would-be dilation or contraction tiny at these velocities, since it lies in
>> the very low relativistic velocity range.
>>
>> A note however regarding motion at such velocity on a "trajectory" about
>> the nucleus of the hydrogen atom, Heisenberg concluded that the electron
>> did not have to translate at any velocity to remain captive on the ground
>> state orbital. From my analysis from the trispatial perspective, I tend to
>> agree with him. Considering how both electrons have to remain by structure
>> midway between the two protons in a hydrogen molecule for their covalent
>> bounding to be logically explainable, this seems to be factual from my
>> perspective.
>>
>> Best Regards
>> ---
>> André Michaud
>> GSJournal admin
>> http://www.gsjournal.net/
>> http://www.srpinc.org/
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:13:54 -0600, "Chip Akins"wrote:
>> Hi Albrecht and Andre
>>
>> First, Albrecht, I agree that the de Broglie wave, as envisioned by de
>> Broglie, leaves much unexplained, and may well be simply wrong, even though
>> it sort of fits partial mathematical descriptions which seem to be shedding
>> some light on the atomic orbitals in a narrow set of circumstances. This
>> failure of the de Broglie hypothesis to work in all circumstances is a part
>> of the reason I started looking into this subject more. The de Broglie wave
>> also seems to fit double slit experiments, but does not really offer a
>> foundation of physical cause. It just seems to work that way without really
>> disclosing the physical reasons for the de Broglie wave itself. So I think
>> we should look for a better foundation, a causal and concrete explanation,
>> instead of building elaborate theoretical structure on speculation which
>> still remains unexplained. So, yes, there are occasions where the
>> speculation of de Broglie can be applied, and we get the right numbers, but
>> that does not mean the theory is correct and we should stop looking for the
>> actual answers.
>>
>> Andre is onto something when he looks for a relationship between the
>> fields of the proton and the fields of the electron to sort out these
>> issues of the quantization of orbitals. However I will have to do some more
>> math to see if the magnetic field relationships can actually be the answer.
>> At this point, prior to doing the requisite math, I think there is also the
>> possibility that certain dynamics of the electric fields created by the
>> proton and electron will explain the quantization of orbitals. But this is
>> premature speculation. And is sort of a moot point because the dynamics of
>> electric fields are the cause of magnetic fields.
>>
>> There exists a beat frequency which is ¼ the de Broglie wavelength, and
>> this beat frequency is a natural condition of the electron in the
>> significantly sub-light speed orbital (example: a mean circular path at α*
>> *c*velocity), so it requires no speculation about dilation or
>> contraction (which are tiny at these velocities).
>>
>> So I think you are both quite correct to look into these issues. We have
>> a lot to gain by reexamining our theoretical basis.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> *From:*General [
>> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>
>> ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171130/630ff0a5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-1.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 252912 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171130/630ff0a5/attachment.tiff>