<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE id=owaParaStyle type=text/css>P {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" bgColor=#ffffff fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Hi John
W,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>(also
Richard, Chip and any other interested parties)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>John, I
believe that we’re very much singing from the same song sheet (but with
different priorities) – but I’m also absolutely certain that we’re talking at
cross purposes!<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>To put it another
way: I I’m not at all sure that you see what I’m getting at – in fact I’m sure
that you don’t (and that’s my fault, for not making my point
clearer).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>[Richard,
see the bottom of my text here for my response to your request re the six pages
I referred to.]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>John, can I
make it totally clear that I have absolutely NO issue with findings of SR as
extensively confirmed experimentally in the LHC; from my own research I would
fully expect that to be the case, in fact I’d be very surprised – and more than
a little concerned – if that were not the case.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Having said that, I further agree with
you that “</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">SR
no longer relies just on the seminal experiments [I] quoted, but on a huge body
of experiment consistent with it” – and this is where, in my view, the whole
problem stems from.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">In
my latest book I consider in meticulous detail the situation of a photon
scattering off an electron in motion with respect to the lab frame
(</SPAN><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1:place><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Compton</SPAN></st1:place></st1:City><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">
scattering).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I consider the
mathematics of this situation from the perspective of both the lab frame and the
electron’s initial ‘rest frame’, both (a) taking the principles of SR to be
applicable (objective frame symmetry) and (b) regarding the lab to be static in
a unique objective universal rest frame and the electron to be in motion with
respect to that objective reference frame.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>In the latter case I make no assumptions regarding the invariance (or
otherwise) of the electron’s ‘rest mass’ in those two frames but rather consider
the effects on motion of the electron as perceived in each of those frames and
consider mass in that context as a factor governing the rate/degree of increase
of speed in each case.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">This
analysis shows that the electron will have an apparent ‘rest mass’ in the moving
frame identical to its actual rest mass in the lab frame, due to subjective
factors in the moving frame.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>More
than this, the apparent effect on motion of this scattering event, as perceived
in the frame moving with respect to the hypothetical universal rest frame, is
identical to the effect on motion as determined by application of standard SR
(in simple terms, the Lorentz transformation).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In other words, the situation as
perceived in the initial ‘rest frame’ of the moving electron offers no clue,
through observation or measurement, as to whether that frame is symmetric with
the lab frame (as proposed by SR) or is in fact in a state of absolute motion
with respect to a lab frame which is defined as being the unique objective
universal rest frame.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Clearly
this situation is very much simpler than those found in the LHC and similar
scenarios.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However it’s equally
clear that this situation is wholly scalable, in terms of numbers of particles
and numbers and types of events, to those far more complex scenarios.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It’s for this reason that I say I have
absolutely no issue with the reams of empirical evidence gleaned from such
high-energy experiments.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">It’s
for this reason also that I say that I consider this to be part of the problem
rather than part of the solution – since it’s abundantly clear that what you and
most other physicists regard as an abundance of confirmatory evidence for SR is
in fact no such thing.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It confirms
that subjective experience of ‘relativistic’ events is fully in line with SR
theory – however it does absolutely nothing to confirm that the frame symmetry
central to SR (as it is generally understood) is an objective reality.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The fact that it is pretty much
universally regarded as confirming objective frame symmetry is what I refer to
as “where the problem stems from”.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">John,
those early experiments that I have looked at in my pdfs do something that these
LHC ‘validations’ don’t: they test the fundamental premise that SR is an
objective phenomenon, not just a subjective experience.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>No amount of experimental data of the
sort you refer to will do that, it simply reinforces the illusion – an illusion
created primarily by the cyclic-photon structure of particles (as you yourself
have hinted at in places).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>That
Illusion is aided and abetted by mutually compensating false assumptions
(according to my analysis), such as the unproven assumption of reciprocity of
rel. time dilation.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">[As
an aside: in my book I also consider the Hasselkamp experiment for detection of
transverse Doppler effect.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It
occurred to me that, given the speed of the earth through the cosmos (approx
0.001c), that speed may be detectable against a universal rest frame by
arranging a Hasselkamp-type experiment in the two opposing directions – directly
with and against the velocity of the earth relative to the CMB (best guess for
that universal rest frame) and finding the difference.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>On working through the maths in detail
it became apparent that, regardless of the speed of the emitting atoms and
regardless of the precision of the detection and measuring apparatus, NO effect
would be detected (basically because primary Doppler shift would inevitably play
a part, one way or the other, and would precisely wash out the difference in
Second Order Doppler Shift).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>You’ll
understand why I refer to this in my book as ‘SODS Law – the quantum
version’.]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">One
might say: “So what’s the odds?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>What possible difference can it make whether observations such as those
in the LHC are the consequence of frame symmetry as an objective truth or as a
subjective impression – since it’s so all-pervasive?<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Why should we even concern
ourselves?”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">John,
it makes all the difference in the world – in the universe!</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>How can we seriously pursue our
aspirations to travel among the stars if we have an erroneous impression of the
very nature of space-time?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In
particular, if we believe that FTL transfer between cosmic locations could
seriously upset the causality applecart – a belief based on the (arguably
erroneous) hypothesis of reciprocity of time dilation.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>How can we formulate a coherent and
workable model of gravitation (i.e. actually <B>explain</B> ‘curvature of
spacetime’) based on a misapprehension that it has to conform with the dictates
of frame symmetry?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Equally, how can
we expand the limits of our understanding at the particle level, if those limits
are themselves set by a false assumption?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">On
the subject of the young Einstein and Maxwell’s equations I’m afraid I have to
disagree with you.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Not on the
subject of ‘ultimate redshift’ (as highlighted by Chip), that’s a given.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I don’t know, though, how you propose
that this flat-lining of that photon would be identified by that fast-moving
observer: it can only be by measurement of either frequency or wavelength: if
the former, I hope we’re agreed that zero/zero gives a result that can be
determined by approaching that situation from sub-c speed (more on that in a
moment); if the latter then one has to ask how the observer/instrument is
measuring an infinite wavelength (even setting aside distance measurement when
time is frozen – distance takes time to measure).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Thinking
of approaching frequency measurement from sub-c, it’s clear from simple analysis
that the photon speed will measure as c rel. to the observer for arbitrarily
small c-v; i.e. there IS a photon (at measured speed c) right up to the limit –
even if red-shifted to the point of oblivion.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>So for arbitrarily small c-v we have a
photon with arbitrarily small energy, still travelling at measured speed c.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If we take the observer right up to
speed c, we cannot say that the photon no longer exists, since by slowing the
observer down again (an arbitrarily small amount) that photon again becomes
apparent – and the idea of a photon coming into existence out of nothing doesn’t
make sense.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>So we must admit the
concept of a photon with measured speed c but zero energy relative to that
observer.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This doesn’t require
SR-type frame symmetry.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">This
is quite different from teenage Einstein’s reasoning that a lack of d/dt of
field effects would lead to a lack of photon – which, if applicable in the
c-speed observer, <B>would</B> support the concept of absolute frame
symmetry.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However, my analysis
dispels that argument on grounds of ‘observer time dilation to
zero’.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Regarding
Fizeau and M&M: both of these, if not explainable in conventional terms,
would likewise point to absolute frame symmetry as applied in SR.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However, I have shown that (a) an
explanation that fits with respect to the observer frame (not just the moving
frame) <STRONG>must</STRONG> exist, even if not known; (b) in both of these
cases there <B>is</B> a pretty straightforward explanation in ‘mechanical’ terms
that require <B>no</B> reference to SR – and so cannot be regarded as in any way
providing evidence for SR frame symmetry.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">So,
in summary:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">(a)
the accepted ‘evidence’ for objective frame symmetry, as applied in SR, is in
fact no evidence at all;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">(b)
all of the phenomena attributed to SR can be fully explained without reference
to frame symmetry;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">(c)
the symmetric Lorentz transformation is a totally valid subjective experience
based on effects of motion upon particles and objects in motion relative to a
unique objective universal rest state (I believe that Chip has also been trying
to put this point across);<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">(d)
there is no basis in fact for application of frame symmetry as an objective
reality in scientific research;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">(e)
assuming objective frame symmetry on the basis of phenomena that can be traced
back to subjective effects leads to assumptions of constraints and attributes of
cosmic phenomena that have no provable basis in objective fact.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This in turn seriously and unreasonably
constrains scientific progress.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Finally,
with regard to electrons performing two full closed loops, it appears that we
are yet again talking at cross-purposes!<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>First, when I asked Richard for any references specifically to empirical
evidence, I didn’t have in mind theoretical models from others such as yourself
– or even de Broglie.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I have great
respect for your theories, but I don’t see them in the same light as
experimentally demonstrated fact; the same goes for any theory, even one put
forward by such a great figure as the noble Count.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>As for de Broglie, you’ll see that my
reference to his attempt to conform with SR was specifically in relation to his
linking his two waves in such a way as to conserve frame symmetry – which,
unless I’m quite wrong, is a concept that owes its significance to being one of
the two postulates of SR.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">If
I were to move at speed v alongside a butterfly that was itself moving linearly
through space at speed v whilst simultaneously tracing out vertical circles –
with no reference image behind the butterfly to measure its motion by – then
that spiral motion would look to me like closed circles.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I’m afraid that no matter how hard I try
I cannot imagine it otherwise.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Neither can I see that it would be different in respect of a photon
moving both cyclically and linearly at the same time: for one moving alongside
it, it would appear to perform closed loops; for one not so moving with it, it
would appear to trace out an open spiral path – no closed
loops.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">This
does <B>not</B> mean that a moving electron has “come undone”, any more than an
electron ‘comes undone’ in transiting from one atomic orbital to another (and
neither is <B>that</B> magic).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It
simply means that looping electromagnetic flow that’s simultaneously traversing
space linearly is tracing out a spiral – just as anything else would.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Whirl a hose round and round: you’ll get
a jet of water forming a circle.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Now do that whilst running along with the hose: you’ll get a spiralling
jet of water.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>To claim that for
some reason this should not be so for a photon is surely to claim a privileged
position for transverse electromagnetic waves – essentially, to claim SR frame
symmetry as a fact (and so to apparently propose that as empirical evidence
of itself!). Whatever this is, it’s certainly not the empirical evidence I was
asking for!<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">[My
first paper in ‘Kybernetes’, April 2011, describes motion as a particle shifting
from a closed-loop stable state to a spiral energy-flow, equally stable,
state.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Why you suggest this means
that an electron has “come to bits” I’m not sure: has the spring in your
retractable ballpoint come to bits?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>If electromagnetic field effects can sustain a closed-loop repeating
pattern, why can they not sustain a linearly-repeating spiral pattern?<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><B>This</B> is what empirical evidence –
buckets of it – tells me is exactly what’s happening.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>To suppose otherwise, it seems to me, is
presupposing frame symmetry in preference over evidence of biros, butterflies
and anything else that describes a spiral!]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">[I
believe that your reference to your & Martin’s relation for de B’s ‘Harmony
of the Phases’ is a reference to your Equation 21.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I’m afraid I can’t agree that you can
derive it from the static-observer perspective then just slide into the
particle-frame perspective by simply dropping what you refer to as the
‘space-like’ component; there’s a bit of accounting to be done here in terms of
time dilation – as I observe in my note on this in my previous email, the view
as seen wholly from the perspective of the static
observer.]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Richard<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">======<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">With
reference to your request for my 6-page analysis of a
</SPAN><st1:City><st1:place><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Compton</SPAN></st1:place></st1:City><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">
scattering event from the perspective of my non-frame-symmetric take on physical
reality: it’s fairly clear from your responses and John’s that my view of
reality, as derived directly from photonic particle structure, is not as well
understood as I would wish.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This is
probably down to lack of clarity on my part, it also seems to me to be partly
due to a reluctance (even if unconscious) on the part of those immersed in SR
concepts to view matters in a way that owes nothing to objective frame
symmetry.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Either way I wouldn’t
wish to offer up that analysis for ‘dissection’ on the basis of only a partial
understanding of where it’s coming from.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Those
six pages start at p. 118 of my book; in other words they follow over 100 pages
of explanatory material, which I regard as a fair introduction to the concepts
that they’re based on.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I’m hopeful
that in the not-too-distant future I’ll have an opportunity to explain those
concepts in an interactive environment such as a group discussion or a
conference.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Until then I’m sure
you’ll understand if I don’t throw them into the ring ‘out of context’, so to
speak, as I don’t think that would benefit either you or
me.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Best
regards,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS ??'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Grahame<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John Williamson</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz
href="mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz">Phil Butler</A> ; <A
title=abooth@ieee.org href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org">Anthony Booth</A> ; <A
title=sleary@vavi.co.uk href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk">Stephen Leary</A> ; <A
title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">Mark,Martin van der</A> ; <A
title=slf@unsw.edu.au href="mailto:slf@unsw.edu.au">Solomon Freer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, June 24, 2016 2:42 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Photon cycle rate
in moving particle - fasteror slower?? - answered.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; DIRECTION: ltr; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<STYLE>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS ??";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
..MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</STYLE>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Hello Grahame (and everyone),</SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>I think your (and Richards) attendance to
detail and to chasing down the consequences of any given model are the
hallmarks of true scientific endeavor. Hats off to both of you!<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I think this work is also going to
lead to useful outcomes for both yourselves and for the group, though perhaps
not to the ones both of you envisage at the moment.</SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>I respect both of you and realize you, as are
most in the group, are fully competent in the SR as taught in the textbooks,
but theirin, indeed lies the problem. </SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Briefly, Richard you are wrong (if that is
what you said – which I am not sure of looking at it), that the cycle rate
should speed up and the frequency go up. At least you would have been wrong if
you had said it. What happens (experimentally) is the (apparent) frequency
observed goes up as the (apparent) clock rate goes down. I say “apparent”
because, of course, for the electron in its own frame absolutely nothing has
happened. Proper relativity is about proper perspective. </SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Grahame, you ask for a reference for
Richard’s statement that electron continues to perform a full (double) loop if
viewed from another frame.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>That
would be me, Martin and experiment. Firstly me and Martin in our 1997 paper.
Secondly me in the 2015 SPIE paper where I derive the gamma factor (which is
just an average behavior, however enshrined it has become amongst the
multitude of the “followers”) from the proper underlying energetic
transformations. Thirdly Martin and I, in a paper under construction at the
moment (it is about the third down our list), where we (mostly Martin) go
properly into the mathematics of the transformations at the detailed
underlying level. </SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>In the second reference I cannot claim
priority. I have seen papers where others mention this result in passing as
well (one by Basil Hiley, He sent me a pile recently and I cannot remember
which one). I have not chased down the original reference (which he does not
give), but it is pretty sure to be Einstein at root. This does not matter, it
is a simple enough derivation. If anyone has enough energy to chase it down
(or just knows it!)<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>please send
me the reference. Remember, Einstein was trying to explain his underlying
thinking in ways simple enough for the folk of the time to begin to
understand. Unfortunately as is often the case, some of the grossly simplified
stuff ends up as Canon.</SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Also you say that de Broglie (one of my
heroes too), was starting from the canon of SR. Not so. Remember the time!
This was a decade before the letter made famous before Michael Gove brought it
up. Relativity was far from accepted at the time. De Broglies own work on this
was labeled “the French madness” at the time. De Broglie started from the
puzzling point of experiment that the frequency increased relativistically as
the ticking clock slowed. Puzzling indeed. Also the de Broglie thesis (first
translated by one of us, Al Kraklauer), is a reference for Richard’s
statement-the original one.</SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Forget about me and Martin though (and even
the sainted de Broglie), lets go for experiment…</SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Independent of model, electrons are
self-sustaining oscillations of some sort. They oscillate back and forth,
staying, on average, in the same place in their own frame. The picture is
electron (like Ourobouros) bites it own tail. It should not be the case that
merely observing it from some other frame should cause it to come undone, and
indeed fast-moving electrons are no more observed to come to bits than slow
moving ones. Conclusion: if it goes round and round in one frame, it goes
round and round in all frames. </SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Now introduce a model. Model it as going
round and round at lightspeed. Can one make this consistent? Some versions of
relativity get this right. If one has a specific version of relativity with
extra constraints (such as being relative to an absolute frame) and that
throws up problems then that is not a problem for experiment, but for the
model. Looking at the law of the proportionality of frequency with energy
(remember this pre-dates relativity), one is led to conclude that the elements
travelling towards you in the oscillation will be blue shifted, those away
red-shifted (see our 1997 paper). Now looking at such a process properly
(relativisticall) throws up an interesting relation. That is that another
oscillation appears, as a kind of beat, between the red-shifted and blue
shifted parts. Martin and I realized this during a discussion during the first
few days of our double loop electron model (itself based on an older (daft and
wrong!) model of mine. Now Martin is good at both maths and physics (however
much he protests) and from this he derived the relation (the de Broglie
Harmony of Phases), overnight one night in 1991. Applying the linearity of
wave addition observed in experiment and enshrined in Maxwell, one should see
another (beat-like) wave appear. It turns out this has the characteristics of
the de Broglie wave. Now we were very excited about this at the time, and we
thought for years that this was one of our original results. It was pointed
out to us sometime before 1994, by Ulrich Enz (the father of the “soliton” –
he of the Mexican hat potential way before Higgs) that de Broglie had done
this first (as indeed he had!). There is no reference to this in our 1991
(unpublished) paper, but is in the 1994 (unpublished) one and in the 1997
(published) one. A proper explanation will really have to wait until Martin
and I can first find time to finish our “division” paper and our individual
papers on our own version of the extension to electromagnesim, then we will
need to make time to get onto this one.</SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>It is always a problem if one starts from an
average behavior and then argues, as though this were Canon, to a detailed
dynamical one. This is true of quantum mechanics, where one can begin from the
uncertainty principle (never was a “principle” less of a principal – the clue
is in the name) and come up with lots of conclusions that are utter bullshit
(I will not give any references!). Likewise, starting with an average
property, such as gamma, and then applying this to the detailed underlying
dynamics of light (from which gamma itself should be derived) is also going to
lead to contradictions in the detail. The problem here lies not in nature, but
in the analysis of nature. If you want to understand the ends you should not
begin in the middle.</SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>The moral is that SR (as taught in the
textbooks) should not be taken as a starting point (you are completely right
in this Grahame), but needs to be understood at a deeper level if one is not
going to get into conceptual problems. The same goes for quantum mechanics.
One needs to derive the uncertainty principle, not start from it. I think I
understand how to derive both (this could be an illusion!) on the basis of the
linearity of light (you are right Chandra!) but this is actually pretty
challenging and quite subtle (Martin and I have been refining this for years)
and I have so little time to try to explain it properly (have had only two
proper weeks this year so far!). I refer you to the references above for more
detail, though you will have to wait for our paper for better – as I have
said.. </SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Anyway – must get back to the grind. Turns
out the admin have failed (very publically) to add three numbers together from
three spreadsheets of results – one out of 18 one out of 22 and a third out of
60 – and come up with a proper number out of 100. For some reason this has now
become my problem. I now have to come up with a method to sort this out on a
case by case basis for 400 first-year students. Deep joy!</SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Talk to you sometime next month when
(hopefully) I come out of this ongoing nightmare.</SPAN></P>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Regards, John. W.</SPAN></P>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 16px">
<HR tabIndex=-1>
</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>