[General] FW: Compton and de Broglie wavelength
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Mon Jan 8 12:06:56 PST 2018
Hi Chip,
I am sorry that I almost forget to answer this contribution of you which
you have sent some time ago. But I should answer anyway and I still have
some questions to your explanations and your calculations.
Am 18.11.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> Thank you for your comment. I am sure that I was not very clear with
> the explanation.
>
> First, yes the ratio of the force of electric charge to the strong
> force is alpha, the fine structure.
>
> And yes, Somerfield did discover that the spectral distribution of
> hydrogen is related to this same constant, the fine structure.
>
But this is still an open question for me. It was always assumed (and
accepted) that the electrons in an atom are bound to the nucleus by the
electric force. So the electric bound causes the orbits of the
electrons. If there is now a change (even if a small one) of the orbits
described by alpha and on the other hand alpha is the ratio of the
electric force to the strong force, then also the strong force has to
influence the orbit. In which way would this happen?
>
> So it has become common to assume that the orbitals of atoms are
> quantized, and a function of that quantization is the fine structure
> constant, which then naturally yields the spectral distribution we
> measure (for hydrogen for example).
>
Again the same question: how does the influence of the strong force can
enter here physically?
>
> This is a commonly discussed concept. The circumference of an orbital
> is an integral number of de Broglie wavelengths of an electron (with a
> velocity which is a function of α*c/n) and an orbital circumference
> which is the de Broglie wavelength at each of those velocities times
> the same integer n. dbWL*n Where n is 1, 2, 3...
>
Again: how can alpha influence the velocity here if part of it is the
strong force? And why is the velocity of the electron proportional to α*c/n?
>
> But I found that a /beat frequency is naturally created by the
> orbiting electron at those velocities/, and the wavelength of that
> beat frequency is exactly ¼ the de Broglie wavelength. So while this
> exploration did not discover a mechanism which created the de Broglie
> wavelength, it did yield a harmonic of the de Broglie wavelength which
> is naturally caused. I simply calculated the inner and outer Doppler
> shifted frequencies of the electron with a radius of 1.9 X 10-13m and
> circulating (orbiting) at the radius 5.29177266E-11 m, and**then took
> the difference of those two frequencies.
>
How are these two frequencies calculated?
>
> This calculation yielded a frequency with a wavelength of ¼ the de
> Broglie wavelength. I then simplified all of the operations of the
> equations used to do the Doppler calculation and arrived at the
> simplified equation for this wavelength: wl = c/(2*alpha*Zitter). And
> then orbital circumference is a quantized value which can be expressed
> as (4n*c)/(2*alpha*Zitter).
>
If you calculate the de Broglie wavelength from the frequency you have
to use the phase speed of the de Broglie wave. This phase speed is
normally (for object velocities clearly lower than c) a large multiple
of c. Where did you determine the phase speed and where did you use it
in your calculations? - And how is Zitter determined?
>
>
> Chip
>
Again, sorry to be so late
Albrecht
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 18, 2017 3:02 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] FW: Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> I have a problem to understand your equations in one point. You are
> using alpha in the formula for stable orbits in an atom. However alpha
> was introduced by Sommerfeld to explain the fine structure in some
> spectra. That is in my understanding very different from your use. Why
> do you have it?
>
> A more recent understanding sees alpha as the relation between the
> electrical and the strong force. Is this the basis for your equations?
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 12.11.2017 um 23:24 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> Sorry I made an error in the email below.
>
> This version has been corrected.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*Chip Akins [mailto:chipakins at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2017 4:17 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> Yes. The alpha I used is the fine structure constant.
>
> I noticed that the equations I sent did not show up correctly in
> the email when returned. The divisions were missing. Copied and
> corrected below…
>
> As it turns out one derivation for this wavelength for each
> orbital can also be expressed as:
>
> /λm = n c/2α f/Ze
>
> Where /n/ = 1, 2, 3… and /f_Ze / is the Zitter frequency of the
> electron.
>
> Of course the de Broglie frequency for this electron would then
> just be/λ/db /= h / m v = 4c/2α f/Ze. Where /f_Ze / is the
> Zitter frequency of the electron:
>
> So that the de Broglie wavelength for the quantized orbitals are:
>
> /λ/db /= 4n c/2α f/Ze
>
> Where /n/ = 1, 2, 3…
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2017 3:54 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>
> Hi Chip,
>
>
> thanks for your answer. My question:
>
> Does the electron in the orbit see a magnetic field? I do not know
> why it should. If there is only one electron in the orbit it would
> have a magnetic field if seen from the outside. But the particle
> itself cannot see a magnetic field caused by itself. - We should
> always be aware of the fact that a magnetic field is not an
> independent force but an apparent force seen if an electrical
> charge is moving. This is caused by relativistic effects like the
> propagation time of the electrical field.
>
> A special case in the hydrogen atom is the ground state of the
> atom. In this state the electron does not have an orbital
> momentum. It moves forth and back through the nucleus. In this
> special situation there is not at all a reason for a magnetic
> field, even if seen from the outside.
>
> For your calculation another question of mine: What does your
> factor alpha mean? Does it have to do with the fine structure
> constant?
>
> And a comment to the Zitterbewegung, which is often understood as
> quite mysterious. The electron has an internal oscillation with
> speed c. This oscillation which is common for all elementary
> particles is the cause of relativistic dilation. It was already
> assumed by Lorentz / Poincare prior to Einstein. But at that time
> this assumption was not taken as serious. In 1930 it was
> re-detected by Schrödinger when he analysed the relativistic Dirac
> function. - And this motion has to be a circular one, otherwise
> the electron would not have a spin and a magnetic moment.
>
> For the rest of your calculations I need a bit more time to
> understand them. It will take some days because I am just on
> travel. So I kindly ask you for patience.
>
> Greetings
> Albrecht
>
> Am 10.11.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> I was recently reviewing the de Broglie hypothesis and
> comparing that to conditions found in the hydrogen atom.
>
> Andre has shown how the force (8.238722E-08) of magnetic and
> electric fields are equal at this particular orbital radius
> (5.29177E-11m)
>
> But I have not yet understood the magnetic field force vector
> compared to the electric field force vector in this orbit, or
> exactly how the interaction of magnetic and electric field
> components could quantize each of the respective orbitals of
> the hydrogen atom.
>
> However I did find that there is a wavelength naturally
> generated by the motion of the electron in this orbit which
> provides for a wavelength which is precisely ¼ the de Broglie
> wavelength for an electron at this velocity (α c). If we take
> the Zitter frequency with motion at velocity for the orbital
> radius plus the electron radius and subtract from that the
> Zitter frequency with motion at velocity for the orbital
> radius minus the electron radius, we obtain a wavelength for
> the difference frequency which is exactly ¼ the de Broglie
> wavelength. I am sure this must have been seen before.
>
> As it turns out one derivation for this wavelength for each
> orbital can also be expressed as:
>
> /λm=n c2α f/Ze
>
> Where /n/ = 1, 2, 3… and /f_Ze / is the Zitter frequency of
> the electron.
>
> Of course the de Broglie frequency for this electron would
> then just be/λ/db/=hm v =4c2α f/Ze. Where /f_Ze / is the
> Zitter frequency of the electron:
>
> So that the de Broglie wavelength for the quantized orbitals are:
>
> /λ/db/=4n c2α f/Ze
>
> Where /n/ = 1, 2, 3…
>
> Thought this was interesting.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Friday, November 10, 2017 1:52 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>
> Hi Colleagues!
>
> I did not follow all details of the preceding discussion. But
> I feel motivated to comment to two points which came up here
> again and again.
>
> One point is the de Broglie wave. For this I recommend
> everyone to look into the thesis of de Broglie. It is in
> original in French, but there is a nice translation done by Al
> Kracklauer *). And I find it easily visible that de Broglie's
> idea of his wave is based on an error.
>
> *) http://aflb.ensmp.fr/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf
>
> De Broglie has meant to have detected the following conflict:
> Physics assumes that there is a permanent oscillation in a
> particle (like an electron) which depends on its (full) energy
> according to the equation: E = h*f , where f is the internal
> frequency. Question was: what happens if the particle is set
> to motion? Clearly its energy increases by the kinetic energy.
> So the frequency f has to increase. On the other hand SR
> assumes dilation which means that the internal frequency has
> to decrease. This was seen as a logical conflict which kept de
> Broglie (in his own words) busy for some lengthy time. Then in
> his view he found a solution which was the introduction of a
> new wave, just the de Broglie wave.
>
> The problem with de Broglie is that he misunderstood the
> situation. He was right in that the internal oscillation slows
> down by dilation (if seen e.g. from the side). However if the
> particle interacts with another particle being in a different
> motion state (for instance at rest) then this other particle
> sees a higher frequency caused by the Doppler effect. And the
> Doppler effect is about the inverse square of dilation, so the
> apparent frequency is increased according to the energy
> equation. And there is no problem.
>
> It is not even necessary to refer to the Doppler effect in
> this case. If the Lorentz transformation is properly used then
> it indicates an increase of the frequency rather a decrease.
> So it encloses already the implication of the Doppler effect:
> The according Lorentz transformation says about the speed of
> proper time: dt' = gamma*(dt-vx/c^2 ). So, if in the simple
> case the interacted particle is at rest and so v=0, then
> because gamma>1 t' will run faster than t . No de Broglie
> wave is needed.
>
> The other point: there are some considerations here about the
> energy / mass of the electron where the energy is always
> related to the electric (or "electromagnetic") properties of
> the electron. This cannot work. Helmut Hönl has in the 1940s
> attempted to deduce the mass of the electron from its
> electrical energy. The result was too small by a factor of
> about 300. (And this is BTW the relation between the strong
> and the electrical force.) As a consequence of the work of
> Hönl it was concluded that it is impossible to determine the
> mass of the electron classically. Conclusion was that the mass
> can only be treated by quantum mechanics. - However if it is
> utilized that the strong force is stronger by the given factor
> and the strong force is used for the determination of mass
> then the result is correct. I have done this calculation as
> some of you know using the strong force and the result
> conforms to the measurement with a precision of almost 10^-6 .
> (My talk in San Diego.)
>
> The objection to this determination is normally that the
> electron is not subject to the strong force because it was
> never observed to react with a particle which has the strong
> force as the dominant one. But this is falsified in so far
> that at the electron ring DESY in Hamburg an interaction
> between electrons and quarks on the basis of the strong force
> was observed around the year 2004. There was then an ad hoc
> explanation introduced for this observation by the assumption
> of a new exchange particle mediating between electrical and
> strong forces which was called "leptoquark". It was then
> attempted to verify the leptoquark at the Tevatron. But
> without any result. So this looks like a clear indication that
> the electron is also subject to the strong force, however with
> a very small coupling constant.
>
> So, what do you think about this?
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
> Am 10.11.2017 um 15:07 schrieb André Michaud:
>
> Hello John,
>
>
> Ok thanks. Taking this in also.
>
>
> I will develop an opinion as I read your articles and
> correlate your grounding premises with my own angle.
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 04:37:50 +0000, John Williamson wrote:/
>
> Actually André I take it back,
>
> If you look at the post I sent to Chip I've argued that
> one needs to consider five superimposed spaces: space,
> flow in space, electric field, magnetic field and spin,
> but I am forgetting myself and warnings from Carver Mead
> not to double-count. While this is true, these spaces are,
> indeed coupled by linear differential equations: this
> means that the odd may be taken to depend on the even and
> vice-versa, meaning that only three can be dynamically
> independent. They are all anyway coupled and
> interdependent though the extended theory of 4D
> space-time, if it is indeed the solution to Hilbert's
> sixth that is.
>
> Regards, John.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> on behalf of John Williamson
> [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
> <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>]
> *Sent:* Friday, November 10, 2017 4:26 AM
> *To:* srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>;
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* Mark, Martin van der
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>
> Hello André,
>
> This is getting more and more interesting! Not promising
> to look at them straight away as I've lots to do today but
> will save them as a treat for later.
>
> I agree that the magnetic field encompasses some aspects
> of spin in that is a kind of "turning thing", but I think
> one eventually needs both!
>
> Regards, John.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*André Michaud [srp2 at srpinc.org
> <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 09, 2017 11:10 PM
> *To:* John Williamson;
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>
> Hello John,
>
> Just one last comment with regard to what we put on the table.
>
> I just quickly scanned your 3 papers and listened to your
> talk.
>
> We may effectively have a direct match space-wise, because
> in the trispatial geometry, your magnetic space and your
> spin space are one and the same.
>
> You'll see why when you read about how spin can be related
> to the expansion-regression process of the magnetic
> component during the EM reciprocal swing.
>
> Best Regards
> ---
>
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 13:49:23 -0500, André Michaud wrote:/
>
>
> /On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 17:33:42 +0000, John Williamson wrote:/
>
> Right-ho André, I will go green ...
>
> Ok, I'll go violet (colors getting drowded)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*André Michaud [srp2 at srpinc.org
> <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 09, 2017 4:29 PM
> *To:* John Williamson;
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>
> Hi John
>
> I'll go red inline for my answers.
>
> /On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 10:26:38 +0000, John Williamson wrote:/
>
> Hello Andre and Grahame,
>
> Sorry Andre, have not looked at the trispatial stuff, have
> been far too busy with the day job for the last few weeks.
> Sounds interesting though. Could you please point me to
> the references again (apologies if you have already given
> them). I will go blue below.
>
> No sweat. I also work a day job so I also indulge when
> time allows. I'll give the links in context below for
> consistency.
>
> Tough stuff, but all fun huh?
>
> Indeed!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> on behalf of André Michaud [srp2 at srpinc.org
> <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 07, 2017 9:24 PM
> *To:* grahame at starweave.com
> <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>;
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>
> Hi Grahame,
>
> The 3D perspective doesn't rule out at all the de Broglie
> wavelength. Quite the contrary. To my knowledge, the de
> Broglie wavelength is the only way to account for the
> energy of the electron in motion in the 4D space geometry.
> The reason is that the self-staining mutual induction of
> the electric and magnetic fields of the energy making up
> the invariant rest mass of the electron cannot be
> described in a 4D spacetime geometry. At least, it never was.
>
> Yes this can be done now. One needs to build in a (root)
> rest mass to the basis of the field (Maxwell) equations.
> There is an example of this in my my two 2015 SPIE papers,
> though there is a flaw in the underlying handedness of one
> of the fields in that theory, the basic method is still valid.
>
> It can be described however in the trispatial geometry,
> and so can that of its carrying energy separately, that is
> the energy that causes the electron to move and also
> accounts for its velocity related transverse relativistic
> mass increment.
>
> This sounds very interesting. There is a sense in which my
> new theory is quadri-spatial. I wonder if there is some
> common ground here? I really need to look at your stuff.
>
> Quite possibly, I have not had a look at your material,
> but obviously we are exploring the same issues.
>
> Indeed, from what you say below these may be EXACTLY the
> same issues.
>
> What I wrote was that the de Broglie wavelength that
> combines both is not valid in the trispatial geometry, and
> is replaced by a resonance effect between the energy of
> the invariant rest mass of the electron and that of its
> separately definable carrying energy.
>
> Sounds as though you need a wave defining these two.
>
> Exactly right! And I have no idea of how to go about this,
> because while the wavelength of the rest mass of the
> electron remains fixed at the Compton wavelength value,
> that of its carrying energy varies with velocity while the
> electron is accelerating, which causes the combined
> resonance volume to vary with increasing velocity, so the
> resonance volume fluctuates as a function of time. In the
> trispatial geometry I tentatively associate Zitterbewegung
> to this resonance effect.
>
> I think you are very close. In my model the Compton
> frequency is fundamental, but double-covering, which
> givesthe zitterbewegung frequency. If you do the
> relativstic transformations correctly, the de Broglie
> wavelength falls out of this beautifully, as Martin first
> derived in 1991 (or maybe 92 - do you remember Martin?).
> Martn is also working a=on an updated and definitive paper
> on this at the moment.
>
> You are right tough, there is an orthogonal factor
> involved between the electric charges of the carrying
> energy and that of the electron. But unfortunately, I
> don't know how to explain this from the 4D perspective. I
> don't think it can be.
>
> In my theory the mass and fields go in as an initially
> neutral fluid. Charge is derived as a result of new
> topological solutions allowed by the extended Maxwell
> equations. The theory is 4D from the beginning. Both the
> de Broglie wavelength and the proper transformations of
> energy-momentum, both for the case of photons and material
> particles may be (are!) derived.
>
> Wow! In the trispatial geometry, what you call a "neutral
> fluid", I identify as fundamental "kinetic energy" as
> induced in charges by the Coulomb force, coupled with the
> fields concept being seen as only sorts of "maps"
> describing the real territory (the behavior of the
> energy), so there really seems to be common grounds
> between both our angles on these issues. I put this in
> perspective in the long but I think required
> setting-in-perspective at the beginning of the de Broglie
> double-particle photon paper:
>
> As I have said to others - there are good features in the
> double particle picture, but this is seriously challenged
> by experiment. In particular with two particles you
> immediately need forces to conbfine them. these forces and
> particles would show up in the scattering cross sections
> and they do not. This was a good idea of de Broglies, but
> I fear it is ultimately a dead end as it falls foul of a
> large body of experimental evidence.
>
> In the double-particle picture of the trispatial geometry,
> there is a self-sustaining reciprocating swing between
> double component electric state and single component
> magnetic state, with the recall property being due to the
> Coulomb Force acting from the trispatial junction. This is
> how the self-maintaining swing is explained in the spatial
> geometry, combined with a property of the "substance"
> kinetic-energy to constantly remain in motion.
>
> I don't think the twin "particles" would show up so much
> with respect to the frontal cross-section, because in the
> trispatial model, the max transverse amplitude of the
> electric swing is only (alpha lambda)/(2 pi), and they
> cannot really be "particles" in the sense of separate
> quanta such as electrons for example. In this geometry,
> they are part of a single incompressible quantum that
> elastically oscillates.
>
>
> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf
>
> For the related electron and the up and down quarks inner
> structures I also add the links to the two paper that
> describe the related mechanics of their establishment in
> the trispatial geometry if you want to have a look:
>
> The Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the
> 3-Spaces Model:
>
> http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf
>
> The Mechanics of Neutron and Proton Creation in the
> 3-Spaces Model:
>
> http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf
>
> The charges in the trispatial model are a "recall effect"
> towards the trispatial junction, and their intensity is
> related to the distance at which opposite "charges" happen
> to momentarily be on either side of the junction.
> Stabilized for the electron and positron, but varying for
> the photon. Not explainable in 4D geometry, but summarized
> in the first column of page 6 of this other paper in the
> 3-spaces geometry with summary description of the 3-spaces
> geometry:
>
> This sounds to me as though it has some similarities to my
> concept, not of the electron, but of the quarks as
> composed of underlying electromagnetic like interactions.
>
>
> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf
>
>
> It would indeed be interesting if all of this could be
> described from the more easily dealt with 4D geometry as
> you seem to have been exploring.
>
>
> I know that ideas like "trispatial geometry" and
> "3-spaces" sound overly exotic, but they really are not.
> Simply an expansion of the concept of the magnetic field
> vs electric field vectorial cross product giving the
> related triply orthogonal electromagnetic relation between
> electric aspect, magnetic aspect, and direction of motion
> of any point of Maxwell's spherically expanding
> electromagnetic wavefront in plane wave treatment, being
> applied to the point source of the wave, which allows the
> emitted quantum to remain localized as it starts moving at
> c from the point of emission, which would explain EM
> photons' permanent localization.
>
> I agree completely, and two of my "3D space are indeed the
> three of electric and the three of magnetic (properly the
> six of electromagnetic, relativistically of course). My
> other two are the three of mass-current and the three of
> spin. I also agree about the localisation.
>
> We seem to really wading in the same waters then.
>
>
> In short, the de Broglie wavelength in 4D spacetime
> geometry is a valid, but more general representation of
> the combined resonance effect of both the electron energy
> and its carrying energy in the 3-spaces geometry.
>
> As Grahame mentioned, Martin van der Mark derived this
> independently from our rotating photon model in 1991, see
> the comment below.
>
> Would you have a link to this paper by Martin?
>
> This is Martin and my 1997 paper on the localised photon
> and is available here:
>
>
> www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf
> <http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf>
>
> There is also a talk of mine on there somewhere, with my
> model for the quarks.
>
> The SPIE papers are available under my name on the Glasgow
> university website.
>
>
> eprints.gla.ac.uk/110966/ and
> eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf
>
> Ok, Il have a look at your material and Martin's.
>
> Maybe we should wait until we both have had time to look
> at the others stuff before trying to correlate ideas more
> closely.
> We are nearing exhaustion of the usable color range.
>
> Best Regards
>
> André
>
> This definitely looks like a quite exciting conversation.
>
> Agreed!
>
> Best Regards
> ---
>
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 19:49:07 -0000, "Dr Grahame Blackwell"
> wrote:/
>
>
>
> Hi André,
>
> I don'tunderstand why a 3-D perspective rules out de
> Broglie wavelength - it certainly doesn't in my
> 3-dimensionally based scenario. The de Broglie wavelength
> is the wavelength attributable to the energy-flow
> component of the electron's formative photon responsible
> for particle motion (as identified by Davisson & Germer),
> whilst the Compton wavelength is the wavelength of the
> formative photon in a static electron - which gives the
> cyclic component of the formative photon travelling
> helically as a moving electron. In that moving electron
> those two components combine as sides of a right-angled
> triangle (Pythag again!) to give the full gamma-factored
> frequency of energy-flow in that moving particle,
> corresponding to the 'relativistically' increased energy
> content of the moving particle. [It's true, of course,
> that de Broglie wavelength never appears as the
> peak-to-peak length of a wave in its own right, only as
> the 'wavelength' of a component of the full photon wave
> that forms a moving electron.]
>
> Only the cyclic component will be apparent to an observer
> (or instrument) travelling with that electron - the linear
> component is not apparent due to a form of Doppler effect.
> This is well shown in John Williamson & Martin van der
> Mark's paper 'Is the Electron a Toroidal Photon?', in
> which they refer to these components as "time-like" and
> "space-like". I don't agree with their proposal that this
> explains de Broglie's 'Harmony of the Phases' - in my view
> a time dilation factor seems to have gone missing - but
> the identification of these components as collinear-with
> (de Broglie)and orthogonal-to (Compton) the direction of
> particle motion is very well reasoned and presented.
>
> No this is not so - Martin derived the harmony of phases
> from this independently in around 1991. It was pointed out
> to us in 1994 by Ulrich Enz ( on circulating in Philips a
> second attempt to publish that paper) that the Harmony of
> phases had first been described by de Broglie in his thesis.
>
> This perspective on particle energy-flow can be used to
> explain fully the phenomenon referred to as 'inertial
> mass' without reference to any extraneous bosons or
> fields, it also provides a direct derivation of E = mc^2
> without any reference to SR.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*André Michaud <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>
>
> *To:*richgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> ;
> general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Sent:*Tuesday, November 07, 2017 3:45 PM
>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] The Entangled Double-Helix
> Superluminal Photon Model
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for the link. I had a quick look, and this
> brings me to clarify why I wrote that there can be no
> de Broglie wavelength from the trispatial geometry
> perspective because I observe that I did not clarify
> this point.
>
> It is due to the fact that in the trispatial geometry,
> the carrying energy of a moving electron is a full
> fledged electromagnetic "carrier-photon", which
> possesses its own wavelength, which is separate from
> the Compton wavelength of the electron.
>
> In the trispatial geometry, there can be no common de
> Broglie wavelength, but only a state of resonance
> between both wavelengths, whose form and extent of
> volumes as a function of time depends uniquely on the
> possibly varying energy of the carrier photon as the
> electron progresses in space since the wavelength of
> the energy making up the invariant rest mass of the
> electron is invariant.
>
> This means that to describe electrons in motion from
> the trispatial perspective, the structure of the wave
> function needs to be adapted to account for this. This
> is something beyond my abilities to do, but that you
> or others would be better equipped math wise to do
> eventually.
>
> Best Regards
> ---
>
>
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 06:25:31 -0800, Richard Gauthier
> wrote:/
>
> HelloAndréand all,
>
> Thanks you for your detailed comments comparing our
> approaches, which I will come back to. One link to my
> Schroedinger equation article is
> https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation
> <https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schr%C3%B6dinger_Equation>.
> A link to a related article is
> athttps://www.academia.edu/9973842/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength_and_a_New_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics.
> Both articles can also be downloaded
> fromhttps://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research.
>
> An article making an analogy between photons in a
> cavity and electrons in an atom is
> athttps://www.academia.edu/19894441/Photonic_Atoms_Predicted_by_the_Charged_Photon_Model_of_the_Electron.
>
> with warm regards,
>
> Richard
>
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:22 PM, André Michaud
> <srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I will try to explain how I correlate my understanding
> of the wave-particle duality with what I perceive your
> understanding is. But it is very difficult to do,
> because, I understand this in the frame of the
> expanded trispatial geometry, while you describe it
> from the perspective of the 4D space geometry.
>
> Also, from my understanding, there exists only
> localized elementary charged particles in physical
> reality, and even after they stabilize in various
> electromagnetic equilibrium states (nucleons, atoms,
> molecules, larger bodies), that continue interacting
> individually. Because of this, to me, there is no
> discontinuity between the submicroscopic level, the
> macroscopic level and even with the astronomical level.
>
> From my perspective, when I look at a baseball in my
> hand and think of how it interacts, I see only the
> bunch of electrons, up quarks and down quarks plus
> their carrying energy that make up its mass that
> interact with the bunch of electrons, up quarks and
> down quarks plus their carrying energy that make up
> the mass of my own body and the Earth.
>
> When you write: "/The question is, what gives the
> photon its individual particle-like nature and also
> its statistical wave-like nature. Since the answer is
> that "nobody knows", /"
>
> I would qualify the last part as "/Since the answer is
> that "nobody knows *from the 4D space geometry
> perspective*", /", which is exactly what de Broglie
> ended up concluding.
>
> This is what got me to thinking and end up exploding
> the three ijk orthogonal vectors describing the
> electromagnetic triply orthogonal relation of any
> point of the Maxwell continuous EM wavefront into 3
> full fledged orthogonal spaces, to see if this could
> help, and I found that it does.
>
> But from this perspective, particle-like behavior of
> localized elementary particles such as the photon
> amount only to its longitudinal inertia coupled to a
> frontal cross-section related to the extent of the
> transverse oscillation of its electromagnetically
> oscillating half, and its wave-like behavior can only
> be the full extent of this transverse electromagnetic
> oscillation.
>
> This transverse oscillation amounts to a form of
> resonance of the energy of the photon, and the volume
> of space visited by this resonance is the only thing
> that can be described by the wave function in the
> trispatial geometry,
> metaphorically speaking, like the wave function can
> describe the volume visited by a resonating
> (vibrating) guitar string, but here the "guitar
> string" is the energy half quantum that
> electromagnetically oscillates.
>
> What you name its "/statistical wave-like nature/" to
> me is the distribution of its energy density within
> the volume that it resonates in over a given time period.
>
> When you write: " /that the helically-moving charged
> photon (now I would call it a half-photon) composing
> an electron produces a quantum wave/"
>
> This is a description that belong to 4D space. In the
> 3-spaces geometry, this is not possible because the
> electromagnetic oscillation is a reciprocating swing
> between both states. The helical motion of the twin
> charges you describe however in your 4D model is
> theoretically possible in the trispatial geometry,
> because both charges are free to swivel freely on the
> Y-y/Y-z plane within electrostatic space while the
> photon moves at c in X-space, which is why I think
> your model is fine even from my 3-space perspective.
> The only difference is that in the trispatial
> geometry, the charges symmetrically piston in and out
> in opposite directions from zero presence to full
> extent at the frequency of the reciprocating swing.
>
> But there is no such thing as a "quantum wave" being
> produced or emitted in the trispatial geometry.
>
> The only possibility for the wave function to apply
> (to the trispaces photon model) is to describe the
> resonance volume of space occupied by the oscillating
> EM energy while reciprocatingly swinging between
> electric state and magnetic state. Nothing is emitted
> while the photon travels.
>
> Our approaches indeed are not very different as you
> mention, but you would have to really get into the
> trispatial geometry to see how close they are. The
> major difference rests with the integration of the
> magnetic aspect, a feature that I see no possibility
> to coherently integrate in the too restricted frame of
> 4D space geometry.
>
> Yes I have an electron model based on the trispatial
> photon model. In fact, there is even a clear and
> seamless mechanics of decoupling of a single 1.022 MeV
> or more photon into a pair of electron and positron,
> but it can make mechanical sense only in the
> trispatial geometry.
>
> Here is a link to the paper describing the decoupling
> mechanics, and also the inner structure of the
> electron (and positron of course), titled "The
> Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the
> 3-Spaces Model":
>
> http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf
>
> There is no such thing in the trispaces geometry as a
> de Broglie wavelength as you conceive, so I cannot
> comment or relate anything to it.
>
> When you write: " /A photon can be "bound" in a wave
> cavity in many possible "resonant states" depending on
> its wavelength just like an electron can be "bound" in
> an atom in many possible orbitals or "resonant states"
> depending on the electron's energy in the atom."/
>
> When I think of a photon interacting, I see it
> interacting with one or many other elementary
> particles. To me a photon interacting with a wave
> cavity such as you consider, is only one photon
> interacting with a bunch of other individual photons
> or other charged EM particles such as electrons,
> positrons, up quarks and down quarks, so I do not know
> how to correlate this with what you say. In the
> trispatial geometry, free moving photons cannot
> stabilize into least action resonance states within
> atoms, but they can communicate their energy to
> electrons so captive, which causes them to jump
> farther away from nuclei or even completely escape.
>
> When you say: "/Maybe the electron gives off one or
> more photons while adjusting to a relatively stable
> resonant energy state in the atom./"
>
> When an electron stabilizes in a least action
> resonance state in an atom, only "one" electromagnetic
> photon can be emitted, carrying away the momentum
> related kinetic energy that the electron accumulated
> while accelerating until stopped in its motion as it
> was being captured. For example, a 13.6 eV photon is
> emitted when an electron is captured by a proton to
> form a hydrogen atom.
>
> But overall, I think we really are looking at the same
> thing from different angles, and seeing practically
> the same thing, but with different color glasses, so
> to speak.
>
> I'd have a look at your paper "The Charged-Photon
> Model of the Electron Fits the Schrödinger Equation"
> (article 21)." Can you give me a link?
>
> Best Regards
> ---
>
>
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 15:08:43 -0800, Richard Gauthier
> wrote:/
>
> Hi André,
>
> Thank you for your very helpful comments and
> questions. The reason that in 2002 I switched from a
> two-particle superluminal quantum model of a photon to
> a one-particle superluminal quantum model was that I
> thought that the lack of experimental evidence for two
> particles in a single photon's makeup would decisively
> defeat this model. Now with a second look it seems
> that my own rejection at that time of essentially the
> same model was premature. But I did learn more about
> electron and photon modeling between then and now.
>
> Referring to point 6 on the question of wave-particle
> duality, as you know, the photon acts like a point
> particle when it is detected individually by a
> charge-coupled-device (CCD) or other methods. But the
> statistical distribution of photons when many photons
> are detected over an area follows a predictable
> wave-like pattern predicted from the wavelength of the
> photon (which can actually be measured consistently
> from such experiments). The question is, what gives
> the photon its individual particle-like nature and
> also its statistical wave-like nature. Since the
> answer is that "nobody knows", I proposed in my
> electron model article "Electrons are spin-1/2 charged
> photons generating the de Broglie wavelength" at
> https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers
> (article #16) that the helically-moving charged photon
> (now I would call it a half-photon) composing an
> electron produces a quantum wave, and showed
> mathematically that this quantum wave predicts the
> electron's de Broglie wavelength along the
> longitudinal direction the electron (composed of the
> helically-moving charged photon) is moving. That gave
> me confidence that a photon model (composed of 2
> spin-1/2 charged photons) would emit similar quantum
> waves that would have the photon model's helical
> wavelength and frequency of rotation, but would also
> have a wave form and frequency and would act like a
> quantum wave function to provide the necessary
> statistical predictions about detecting photons.
>
> You explain wave-particle duality differently in your
> photon model, as due to transverse electromagnetic
> oscillations within your photon model. Perhaps these
> two approaches are not so different. Do you have an
> electron model based on your tri-space photon model,
> and if so does your electron model generate the de
> Broglie wavelength?
>
> Also, you said you associate the quantum wave of a
> photon with a resonance volume associated with the
> photon rather than a "wave-being-emitted" from the
> photon. Again, our approaches may not be so different.
> A photon can be "bound" in a wave cavity in many
> possible "resonant states" depending on its wavelength
> just like an electron can be "bound" in an atom in
> many possible orbitals or "resonant states" depending
> on the electron's energy in the atom. I see the
> superluminal energy quantum composing an electron as
> something that seeks out through its quantum waves the
> possible resonant states in an atom (or positive ion)
> it meets, based on the electron's energy and
> wavelength, and then establishes itself in an energy
> state (with its corresponding wave function) in the
> atom which is consistent with the electron's energy
> (and its de Broglie wavelength). Maybe the electron
> gives off one or more photons while adjusting to a
> relatively stable resonant energy state in the atom.
> Something similar could happen when a photon enters a
> cavity where it can settle into a resonance state if
> it has the necessary wavelength. This I think is a new
> way of looking at quantum mechanics and is quite
> tentative. My work connecting the "spin-1/2 charged
> photon" electron model with the Schroedinger equation
> is at "The Charged-Photon Model of the Electron Fits
> the Schrödinger Equation" (article 21).
>
> Richard
>
> On Nov 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, André Michaud
> <srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have been reading your last paper:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320727586_Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Composite_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant
>
> Quite interesting and clearly described. Easy to
> visualize.
>
> The first point I note is your use of a pair of
> charges in action within the photon structure, which
> is something I agree must be the case. Since light can
> be polarized by magnetic fields, it makes complete
> sense that charges, which are known to react to
> magnetic fields, must be involved in a localized
> photon and that two of them need be present and
> interacting, since how could a single point-like
> behaving charge ever be polarized?
>
> Referring to basic geometry, a point can have no
> particular orientation in space while two point
> (charges) physically located some distance apart,
> however close they may be, and between which a
> distance (a line) can be measured, can transversally
> be oriented in any direction on a plane perpendicular
> to the direction of motion, which light polarisation
> seems to involve.
>
> I also agree with your correlating them with the
> concept of two half spin half-photons, which gives the
> complete photon a spin of 1, which is in line with de
> Broglie's hypothesis.
>
> Since you make them move in a double helical
> trajectory, they are de facto in mutual transverse
> alignment with respect to the direction of motion,
> which makes your photon polarizable in conformity with
> observation, and is in agreement with the known fact
> that electromagnetic energy involves transverse
> oscillation, contrary to sound in a medium which
> involves longitudinal oscillation of the medium.
>
> You mention that Caroppo (8) has developed a
> hypothesis along the same lines without reference to
> de Broglie, but I couldn't locate it to have a look
> because no doubt by mishap your (8) refers to the
> Einstein-Pololsky-Rosen paper that fed initiated the
> debate with Bohr (if I recall correctly) and in which
> I couldn't locate Caroppo's name.
>
> Since you make them spiral along the trajectory, their
> slightly internal superluminal spiraling velocities
> are consistent with the fact the photon proper would
> move at c.
>
> You assign fixed values to both charges, which is
> consistent with the fact that they remain at fixed
> distances from the axis of motion. This is different
> from my model, in which their value varies between a
> maximum and zero at each cycle. In my own model, I see
> the concept of charge as a form of "recall potential",
> so to speak, that tends to pull the energy making up
> the half-photons towards each other.
>
> As for a quantum wave being generated by the photon, I
> have an entirely different view of how the wave
> function applies to elementary particles. In
> particular, since in my view, the wave function
> defines a resonance volume first and foremost, I do
> not understand it as being something like a
> "wave-being-emitted" only as a resonance volume within
> which oscillating energy quanta would be contained in
> resonance state either while in translational motion
> or when stabilized in some electromagnetic least
> action state. So I have no comment for this part.
>
> I think your model is consistent with splitting into a
> pair of separately moving electron and positron if it
> has an energy of 1.022 MeV or more, just like my own
> model.
>
> I agree with your idea of the charges of both
> half-photons being Q and -Q relative to each other,
> except in mine, their intensity cyclically varies. I
> think your use of the Coulomb force to hold them is
> consistent. In my model, I am still fuzzy about what
> the Coulomb force really is, so I am still in search
> of how it really applies within the structure of my
> model, although I am convinced that it applies.
>
> I have no comment on entanglement.
>
> To your possible criticism No. 1) regarding the
> superluminal velocity. I agree that this is a problem.
>
> You put in the possible criticism list the idea No. 2)
> the photon may be composite.
>
> No possible criticism in this case in my view. If the
> photon was not composite, it simply could not be
> polarized. If it was not composite, it would behave
> point-like like the electron, a structure that has no
> orientation in space. From my perspective, the very
> fact that it can be polarized by magnetic fields is
> the proof that it is internally composite.
>
> Your possible criticism No. 3) is grounded on Larmor's
> hypothesis, not on physically observed behavior. No
> new law is required. There is no account on record of
> electrons accelerating in straight line that radiate
> energy while accelerating. You need to wiggle them
> from side to side along the trajectory for them to
> release synchrotron radiation. Also, the John Blewett
> experiments with the GE Betatron in the 1940`s showed
> that electrons on perfectly circular orbits do not
> radiate. Electrons radiate in cyclotron`s storage
> rings only because their trajectories are forced into
> "approximately circular" orbits, not "perfectly
> circular" orbits.
>
> Your No. 4) is no criticism indeed, It simply is a
> possibility that single high enough energy photons
> could possibly produce muon-antimuon pairs for
> example. Your photon model is not oversimplified. I
> think it is ok in this respect.
>
> Your No. 5) I would reformulate as follows: "Light
> "beam" (made of individual photos) easily pass through
> each other. You assume that their internal charges
> would interact with each other and disturb their
> photon trajectories.
>
> If the pair of charges of each photon can be polarized
> transversally, which is what is observed, then what
> interaction they may have with each other will be on
> the transverse plane, mutually affecting only the
> orientation of their mutual polarities, which would
> not affect their trajectories, which is what is
> observed. Besides, since they cross paths each moving
> at c, the interaction is reduced to a barely
> measurable moment. We know they interact however, as
> proved by the McDonald et. all experiments at SLAC in
> 1997 when they mutually destabilized sufficiently for
> some 1.022 MeV (or more) photons in one of the beams
> to convert to electron positron pairs.
>
> Your Number 6). I see wave-particle duality of the
> photon in the following manner: Longitudinal
> point-like behaving cross-section during absorption,
> and transverse electromagnetic oscillation (wave-like
> behavior) during motion. To me this is the only
> meaning of wave-particle duality.
>
> Your Number 7) is interesting. The very structure of
> the 2 charges model of your photon model and of mine
> provide the answer. Both charges being rigidly
> maintained by structure on either side of the axis of
> motion of the photon, they can freely swivel on the
> perpendicular plane from the minutest transverse
> electric or magnetic interaction. This characteristic
> alone is sufficient in my view for entire beams of
> photons to be forced into the same polarity
> orientation by subjecting the beam to any specific
> electromagnetic constraint configuration.
>
> I would add two items to your list of possible criticism
>
> 8) How does the photon maintain its light velocity?
>
> 9) Since photons are supposed to be electromagnetic,
> how can the electric and magnetic fields that they are
> supposed to be associated with be described?
>
> Quite a biteful to chew on! You seem to have addressed
> most issues that need to be analyzed about the photon.
>
> Best Regards
> ---
>
>
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:23:45 -0700, Richard Gauthier
> wrote:/
>
> Forwarded from Chip
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *"Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>>
>
> *Subject: [General] Relativity*
>
> *Date: *October 31, 2017 at 6:46:19 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>>
>
> Hi Grahame (and Andre)
>
> A while back, we briefly discussed the idea that
> SR is not “logically self-consistent” even though
> many conclude that it is mathematically
> self-consistent.
>
> Regarding logical self-consistent issues…
>
> In order to address this point I think we would
> need to take a look at the “landscape” as it
> relates to “relativity”.
>
> While doing this, if we look at causes, which is
> to say that we use the concept of cause-and-effect
> as our guiding principle, as you have properly
> stressed, we can come to logical conclusions which
> simply do not agree with SR in all details.
>
> So we can take a look at many of the known
> conditions to guide the development of a composite
> view of the causes for “relativity”.
>
> Sound waves travel through a medium. Sound waves
> exhibit the Doppler Effect simply because they
> travel at a “fixed” speed through a “homogeneous”
> medium, regardless of the velocity of the object
> emitting the waves.
>
> Light also exhibits the Doppler Effect in space.
>
> So there is an indication that some similarities
> may exist between the causes of the Doppler Effect
> in sound and in light.
>
> Einstein stated that “/light is propagated in
> empty space with a velocity c which is independent
> of the motion of the source/”, which is an
> incomplete statement, logically inconsistent,
> because the/velocity c in empty space/has no
> meaning, unless we use the fixed frame of space,
> or some other reference, as the logical reference
> for that velocity. A velocity simply must be
> stated in reference to something.
>
> Einstein also stated that, “/Absolute uniform
> motion cannot be detected by any means./” Which is
> indicated by experiment as well. So no problem here.
>
> And he then followed with the assertion that
> “/This is to say that the concept of absolute rest
> and the ether have no meaning./” (/Paraphrased/)
>
> This second conclusion is/not/fully logically
> supported by the evidence presented, and is
> logically inconsistent with the assertion that
> “/light is propagated in empty space with a
> velocity c which is independent of the motion of
> the source/”. There are alternate interpretations
> of this evidence which are more causal and logical
> than this.
>
> First, our inability to measure something does not
> necessarily make it meaningless. There are a
> myriad examples we can give of things which we
> cannot directly measure, but we have come to
> accept, because of indirect evidence which
> stipulates their existence.
>
> We can however, from the evidence, reconstruct a
> set of conditions, which is causal, and yields
> results which match observation.
>
> For example, if light is made of “stuff” that
> propagates through a fixed frame of space at c,
> and if matter is made of confined versions of the
> same “stuff” also propagating (in confinement) at
> c in a fixed frame of space, then we would have
> exactly this set of circumstances. We would not be
> able to detect our motion through space by using
> an apparatus like the Michelson-Morley experiment.
> Note: This approach does not relegate as
> meaningless anything which may in fact be quite
> important.
>
> But if “/the concept of absolute rest and the
> ether have no meaning.”/Then how do we
> explain/“light is propagated in empty space with a
> velocity c which is independent of the motion of
> the source”/and the resultant Doppler Effect when
> a moving object emits light?
>
> While I am fully aware of the explanation that EM
> radiation is represented by vector “fields”, and
> that they somehow could propagate through an empty
> space at a fixed velocity justified only by the
> math. That is a less satisfactory answer logically
> because it does not present/physical/cause. This
> consideration, and the Doppler Effect, coupled
> with the underlying physical cause mentioned
> above, for us not being able to detect our own
> motion through space, yields two logically
> consistent reasons for looking at space as a sort
> of medium, with a “fixed” frame.
>
> Lorentz transformations are a natural result of
> the situation mentioned above regarding the
> constitution of light a matter. These
> transformations are required under the
> circumstances where light and matter are made of
> the same “stuff” and that stuff moves at the fixed
> speed c in a fixed frame of space. This all occurs
> in a 3 dimensional Euclidian space.
>
> So there is a more logically consistent, causal
> view, than the one proposed by SR.
>
> When we run the math describing the situation
> where space is a medium in which the propagation
> of disturbances is a fixed velocity, and light and
> matter are made of these disturbances, we obtain
> the set of Lorentz transformations, and cause for
> “relativity” is shown, precisely and clearly. This
> is a logically consistent basis, and one which
> shows cause. In contrast to SR, which is a
> different interpretation of the same starting
> information, but does not show cause, and does not
> appear to be as logically consistent.
>
> Are there ways to present this and related
> information which better illustrates the case from
> a logical basis?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Chip
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 grahame at starweave.com
> <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180108/21ba4450/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list