<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi Grahame<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Thank you for the thoughtful response. This is a stimulating conversation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>As for the issue you addressed when you said…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>But then we need to look at the decay rate of muons, which are elementary particles with no substructure. That decay rate is known to slow down for muons at speed, exactly in accordance with the SR formula for speed-related time dilation. Decay of such an elementary particle must surely be a process dependent on the internals of that particle itself (as a point of detail it's worth noting that the environment in which muons exhibit this behaviour is not itself moving at speed); this suggests that something within the muon is itself operating at a reduced rate.</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>This is not necessarily the way it works. We have all suggested that there must be a force to confine the “photon” to make it become a fermion. When we calculate this force it is clear it is energy dependent. With increased energy the particle theoretically has more confinement force. This alone could make it take longer for the particle to decay, and one would expect that the decay time would therefore be affected precisely by the amount of increase in binding force (which is also the amount predicted by the time dilation theory). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Gouanere </span><span style='color:black'>results you mention are very interesting. All of the information I have been able to find states that the results are inconclusive at best. Can you provide more information or links where I can study the experiment and the results you mention?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 13, 2016 1:32 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Hi Chip, Richard, John D,</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>[Note: in the past 24 hrs there have been emails from John W, Chip, John D and Richard; none of those later emails have been addressed in my text below, which refers to your previous emails, however on a quick look through I didn't see anything that would change my comments below.]</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>John D,</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>I reckon all of us who subscribe to the cyclic-photon model of the electron have embraced the slinky-spring-type structure for some years - some of us for more than a decade. The issue here isn't the asymmetry, or whether a Compton-scattered photon passes something to the electron, it's about the fact that when the formative photon of such an electron shifts from a circular to a helical pattern (the electron moves) then a component of that formative photon's angular momentum (its spin) acts in the direction of motion of the electron, so presumably increasing the spin of the electron (unless some other factor causes its spin to decrease by an exact corresponding amount). Whether or not one believes in the frame symmetry of SR (i.e. that an electron on the move is identical to me on the move past an electron), this is certainly true for an electron from the perspective of one for whom that electron is moving (which is likewise a valid state in SR). [I note that John W has said quite a bit on this in his latest email, I hope to comment on that when I've read it & thought about it thoroughly.]</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Richard,</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>I know of no experimental evidence that z-component of ang mom for a moving electron is other than + or - hbar/2 (i.e. spin +/- 1/2). However, in the absence of evidence for or against the ang mom z-component being +/- hbar/2, I take the view that it need not necessarily be, and so a theory that allows for it being otherwise is quite feasible unless and until it's shown that it definitely IS always that value. It's a bit like saying that if a baseball is hit with a baseball bat then one can assume that it may have differing values for its angular momentum unless/until it's shown that it must always be the same - rather than assuming that it must always be the same unless/until someone proves definitively that it can have differing values. Given that the spin will only be significantly different (if ever) at highly relativistic speeds of electron motion, it seems to me that requiring a theory to conform to spin +/- 1/2 at all speeds until proved otherwise (when that requirement is apparently totally unfounded on experimental evidence) is a rather more demanding constraint than those applied to almost any other emergent theory in physics. [Ditto my last comment on JW's latest emails.]</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Chip,</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>I can see your reasoning regarding time dilation acting in relation to interaction of particles with their environment but not internally to the particles themselves. That isn't borne out by the empirical evidence, though; there are at least two quite different practical demonstrations of time dilation acting within elementary particles themselves.</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>First, to state the obvious, time dilation doesn't just happen; in common with every other effect in the universe (including those other effects attributed to SR), there has to be a causal mechanism that gives rise to that effect. With regard to time dilation in multi-particle systems (including composite objects) mainstream science recognises such a cause for time dilation (as observed in a moving object from the static lab frame; I know of no empirical evidence that, as supposed, this effect is fully reciprocal - that would require measurements from WITHIN a frame moving at relativistic speeds, not just OF a 'clock' moving at such speed). It's accepted that within an object moving at speed, the inter-particle (photon) signalling paths would be extended, leading to slowing of processes involving such signalling (such as in a clock of any type or any other object, including a living organism). This is 'relativistic' time dilation in a multi-particle object.</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>That fits with your theory, of course. But then we need to look at the decay rate of muons, which are elementary particles with no substructure. That decay rate is known to slow down for muons at speed, exactly in accordance with the SR formula for speed-related time dilation. Decay of such an elementary particle must surely be a process dependent on the internals of that particle itself (as a point of detail it's worth noting that the environment in which muons exhibit this behaviour is not itself moving at speed); this suggests that something within the muon is itself operating at a reduced rate.</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>The second effect of note in this context is zitterbewegung of electrons moving at speed. The experiment of Gouanere et al shows very clearly the looping rate of electrons slowing with speed, again exactly in accordance with the SR time dilation factor. There seems no doubt that Gouanere et al's results are a direct consequence of the loop time (so also double-loop time) for the formative photon in an electron increasing by factor gamma with speed of electrons. This is nothing to do with interaction with the environment (though of course it has an impact on that interaction), this is photon cycles taking longer internally to the electron - and as a consequence resonating with a crystal lattice exactly as one would expect in such slowed-down-looping circumstances. If one regards the looping (or double-looping) of the formative photon as the 'de Broglie clock', then that 'clock' is indeed slowed by a factor 1/gamma, totally internally to the electron.</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>I'll look at those other more recent emails shortly; I have to say that on scanning them quickly I found various of the points that I saw quite exciting - as you say Richard, we seem to be getting somewhere; Chip, I also found your reference to Matlab modelling, and your comments on that, most interesting and with real potential. I'll hopefully respond to those various emails shortly.</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Best regards to all,</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Grahame</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>----- Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid navy 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:#E4E4E4'><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" title="johnduffield@btconnect.com">John Duffield</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>To:</span></b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sent:</span></b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:23 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Subject:</span></b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Can I chip in to say that IMHO Compton scattering takes a “slice” off the photon and gives it to the electron in an asymmetrical fashion. As a result, the electron moves. It moves because it’s a circulating photon that’s no longer a <i>symmetrical</i> circulating photon. It’s hard to visualize this, but simplify the electron to a photon going round in a circular path. When Compton scattering occurs, energy is added so the wavelength reduces, but asymmetrically. It’s like drawing say 355 degrees of a circle, then without lifting your pen, drawing another 355 degrees of a circle, and so on:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><img border=0 width=414 height=237 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D1DD48.B4FFECB0"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>As for the exact details of what happens with a fast-moving electron, I’m not sure. I am reminded of extending a slinky, but I know that an electron doesn’t change just because I move past it fast. And I wish that all physicists only had that to disagree upon. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>JohnD<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></blockquote></div></body></html>