<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" 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"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"><!--[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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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:0cm;
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:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
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.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
..MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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 lang=EN-GB link=blue bgColor=white vLink=purple>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Chip, Richard, John
D,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[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.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>John D,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Richard,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Chip,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards to all,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </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; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=johnduffield@btconnect.com
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com">John Duffield</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>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:23
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] double photon
cycle, subjective v objective realities</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US">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
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><IMG
id=Picture_x0020_1 src="cid:B3B7F17E13CA407888399FBD9722CBD6@vincent"
width=414 height=237></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US">
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US">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
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US">JohnD<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>