<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML dir=ltr xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Helvetica;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@page WordSection1 {margin: 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
P {
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; MARGIN-LEFT: 0cm; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm
}
SPAN.EmailStyle19 {
COLOR: black
}
SPAN.EmailStyle21 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri",sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d
}
</STYLE>
<STYLE id=owaParaStyle type=text/css>
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-GB link=blue bgColor=white vLink=purple fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi John (et al),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Glad to hear that your dad had such a
prestigious name!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I've finally got round to responding
to your emails of 13th & 14th July. You'll find my response following
your fourth paragraph, the one that includes the bit on muons, since that's
where I first have something concrete to respond to.</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=nick@bailey-family.org.uk href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk">Nick
Bailey</A> ; <A title=abooth@ieee.org href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org">Anthony
Booth</A> ; <A title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">Mark,Martin van der</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 14, 2016 6:55
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] double photon
cycle, subjective v objective realities</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; DIRECTION: ltr; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; DIRECTION: ltr; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<STYLE>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073711037 9 0 511 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS ??";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-520082689 -1073717157 41 0 66047 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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</STYLE>
<P style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Dear
Grahame,<BR><BR>I really like your thinking: the fact that you really can
think and the way you try to take the full consequences, to the limits, of
whatever you come up with. I cannot wait to meet you and get some proper
discussions going.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">I
also think (and agree with you) there is an absolute frame in some sense - but
not necessarily that that frame has any first-order effects in terms of the
velocity. Where I think there certainly is an “absolute” frame is in terms of
rotations. For me that frame is with repect to the CMB. It is worth noting
that we are not quite in it – and also that our motion with respect to it does
vary with season. These effects should be measurable, and there have been
attempts to do so, but these effects are not fully consistent. Anyway one
needs to deal with the observed so-called time dilation experiments I’m coming
on to soon – and these are a more important challenge. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">At
high frequencies, such as those in the elementary particles we are
considering, rotational effects are much more potent in that they introduce a
light-speed rotation horizon (a term introduced by my late father – also a
Grahame). Having said this I think you are really missing something about
relativity <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>(especially general
covariance) as it is usually understood and I think I am beginning to see what
it is. Now I am not entirely sure what I am about to say is entirely correct
in nature (in fact I do not think myself that the “generally accepted” view is
the whole story) but I will try to give two arguments – the first from the
generally accepted standpoint and the experiment which supports it – the
second from my own work.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Firstly
experiment. You seem to think (correct me if I am wrong) that the effect of
the longer period observed for highly relativistic muons requires a “physical
effect”. It does not. An observer travelling with these muons would, equally,
see our muons having a much longer decay time. The effect is purely that of
perspective. We have had a long discussion about this before in this forum. In
the relativistic muon frame everything is normal. The muons there decay at
exactly the same rate for an observer in that frame as do muons in our frame
decay with respect to us. There is no physical slowing of clocks (or
shortening of rulers) in a local frame. The maths of usual relative relativity
works perfectly symmetrically. Ok – relativity is just a theory – where is the
experimental evidence for what I have just said?</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>I’ve never
proposed that the Lorentz Transformation wouldn’t apply reciprocally in an
observational sense, in fact I’ve several times gone out of my way to affirm
(and demonstrate, in my book) that it would.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>To the best of my knowledge, however,
there's never been an observer or instrument travelling at relativistic speed
that's recorded any evidence of time passing at a slower speed in the earth
frame (our static frame) – as SR proposes, and as you keep telling me IS so
(and so I am wrong, apparently).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>I’m still waiting to hear of ANY evidence of this.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I fully agree – and expect – that an
observer or instrument in the frame of those fast-moving muons would clock
them decaying at the same rate as we see decay in static muons in the earth
frame; this is totally to be expected since the particles and inter-particle
signalling within that observer/instrument would be subject to precisely the
same physical (‘time dilation’) effects as the muons themselves.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This is accepted – at least the
inter-particle signalling bit – by leading figures in mainstream physics (who
also regard every effect as necessarily having a cause – which you
don’t seem to agree upon).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>This would also lead naturally to a fully consistent pattern of
behaviour in a fast-moving frame identical to that in the earth frame – since
everything is dancing to the same tempo.<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, of
course the maths of SR works perfectly: Einstein wasn't an idiot, neither
were/are those many<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>thousands
since who’ve used his mathematical framework.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Don’t keep telling me the maths is
consistent, or that observers in a moving frame will see objects/events in
that frame just as we see similar situations in the earth frame – that’s old
hat!<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Just point me to evidence,
collected from observation/measurement made in a fast-moving frame, of
time dilation in the earth frame as seen from that fast-moving perspective;
it’s my understanding that this group places great store in empirical
evidence, let’s have a bit of that regarding the (as yet totally speculative)
proposed reciprocity of 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"
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>I’m also
not quite sure why you’ve pointed out that the earth frame doesn’t coincide
with the CMB rest frame and that that motion of earth rel. to CMB varies with
the seasons; unless we're harking back to the earth being the centre of the
universe that’s bound to be so (particularly given that in all probability the
universe doesn’t HAVE a centre).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Is it not possible that “</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-GB>these effects are not fully consistent</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>”,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB> as you
observe, because we're actually measuring effects re a static frame from an
objectively moving frame?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>That
would do it.<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>You also
say that for you there’s a philosophical point “</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-GB>that</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-GB> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-GB>the proper equations describing the dynamics of our universe should
not be frame-dependent</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>”.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>For me that sounds disturbingly like
Eddington’s philosophical view that “</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><FONT face="Times New Roman">there should be a law of Nature to
prevent a star from behaving in this absurd way!</FONT></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>” (notable
for holding back Chandrasekhar’s findings for decades).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I didn’t start from any ‘philosophical
point’, I started with a puzzle: just like working one’s way through a sudoku,
I worked through that puzzle and came to (for me) a totally rock-solid
conclusion: Special Relativity is a subjective phenomenon brought about as a
consequence of particles of matter being formed from loops of light.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I most definitely didn’t start with
loops of light, nor did I start with SR – I started with a puzzling question
about time, arising from observations re radio waves.<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>As for
your rationalisations re Maxwell’s equations, they also appear somewhat
subjective as to what they demonstrate – and I don’t agree with the
conclusions that you draw (vive la difference!) Note that I'm not
disputing the objective facts that you quote, just your conclusions from
them.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>You point to the huge
accelerations involved: it might surprise you to hear that, at a very
fundamental level, I don’t believe that ANYTHING physical in the universe
is actually moving (that’s for another time); certainly I don’t see why
accelerations that to us are extremely high should be an impediment to our
understanding.<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>Referring
back to your closing remark in your email of 13<SUP>th</SUP> July<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>“</SPAN><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Gentlemen,
coming back to the discussion about the spin of the moving electron -if we
take angular momentum to be conserved then the spin of an electron passing you
fast is exactly the same as one passing you slow as JD said as – think about
it – you have not spun it up or down by accelerating yourself</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US">.</SPAN></FONT><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>”, I
believe there are two implicit assumptions here that you’ve thrown in.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>One is that “accelerating yourself” is
the same as “electron passing you fast” – which appears to be a tacit
assumption of SR frame symmetry (thus dismissing any suggestion to the
contrary, and so invalidating your remark for anyone who doesn’t subscribe to
SR objective frame symmetry); the other is, paradoxically, an apparent point
against SR.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Figure this: If an
electron is moving at speed then the cycle rate of its formative photon is
seen in its own ‘rest frame’ identically to the cycle rate of a static
electron in the static (lab) frame; this means that the cycle rate of that
moving electron’s formative photon will be seen from the lab frame as slowed
by a factor 1/gamma (standard time dilation); one could likewise expect the
spin of a fast-moving electron to measure the same in its ‘rest frame’ as the
spin of a static electron in the static (lab) frame – so, since spin is based
on angular momentum (simply a constant factor hbar away) and angular momentum
is a time-based measure, why would a static observer ALSO expect to see that
fast-moving electron with the same spin as it had in the static frame?<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It doesn’t add
up.<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>Just to
round off, I’m still waiting to hear how Equation </SPAN><st1:metricconverter
ProductID="21 in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>21
in</SPAN></st1:metricconverter><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB> your
‘Toroidal Photon’ paper can be reconciled with SR.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>You show, 100% correctly IMO, that the
increased frequency of the formative photon in a moving electron can be
resolved into ‘time-like’ and ‘space-like’ components, the former
corresponding to the frequency of that same electron in the static frame and
the latter being due to the photon’s motion.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>So far so good.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It will be clear to the static
observer (whose perspective is represented by this equation) that the latter
component won’t be apparent to an observer moving with the electron (or in SR
terms, won’t even exist for that moving observer).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However, it will also be clear that
the time-like component (all of it) WILL be apparent to that moving observer –
that’s surely the point of this equation.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If we look at it from the static
observer’s perspective we see the time-like component as also perceived by the
moving observer – and we also see time running slower for that moving observer
– – which means that an atomic clock travelling with that electron (visible to
both static and moving observers) will show that time-like frequency component
(also visible to both static and moving observers) as running faster than in
the static frame.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Whither
SR?</SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>I hope you
see these questions as an interesting challenge, which is how they are
meant. It's by butting up against each others' perspectives (and
sometimes preconceptions, aka philosophies) that we'll hopefully winnow out
the wheat from the chaff in our various theories and so come to something
satisfying and nutritious for all of us (and ultimately, hopefully, for a
whole lot of other people).</SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Best
regards,</SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Grahame</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">At
CERN, for example, I worked on two experiments, one a colliding beam
experiment, the other a fixed target experiment. In the former the decay of
particles is (roughly) in the earth frame. In the fixed target case it is in a
highly relativistic frame moving at very nearly the speed of light with
respect to the earth (we used 200 GeV muons – so all the products are moving
rapidly forwards and downwards into the earth. Now one can measure particle
lifetimes in two ways – one by looking at how far they go before they decay
into something else, the other (for very short-lived particles) by looking at
the width of the rest-mass resonance. There is no difference, as far as I am
aware, in the lifetimes and branching ratios (what they decay into) measured
by either kind of experiment. This shows pretty conclusively, for me, that the
decay is not directly related to a physical property in any fixed frame. It is
all a matter of perspective. Father Ted would say “these are small – those are
far away” where uncle Einstien might say something like “these are stationary
– those are rather fast”.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Secondly
there is an important philosophical point for me – that the proper equations
describing the dynamics of our universe should not be frame-dependent. In
particular the Maxwell equations, for example, should be identical in any
frame. This is particularly important for all of our models since the internal
photon may be moving at lightspeed in the x direction at one phase, 45 degrees
later (its a double loop) its moving at lightspeed in y. This is a very
different frame, but both are moving at lightspeed with respect to the earth
frame. The frames are highly accelerated (for my by the pivot-field
interaction, for Alex by extended gravitation – others have proposed Casimir
forces, or rest-of-universe interactions (me too!)). Whatever. The internal
photon is following a geodesic. It is following its own, natural, force-free
path – according to itself. Local “space” whatever it is, looks flat to the
(self) confined photon. In that space The photon thinks it is a perfectly
normal photon – photoning along. For us, of course, there appear to be huge
accelerations (in our frame) acting on it.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It is finding the origin of these huge
accelerations, that is the step beyond our 1997 model and that of most of the
other models (with the possible exception of Alex’s – though he has started by
putting in the observed angular momentum and inferring (quite rightly!) that
there most be something confining it) being proposed here</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Now
the Maxwell equations work in any proper, orthonormal conformal space
(formally, this is because the grad operator may be patched onto any such
space – (think of setting up an xyz frame on the surface of our all too
spherical earth). That is there are, equally, solutions in Cartesian,
Circular, Spherical, Toroidal, Bispherical space and so on– as well as all of
their inversions in a unit sphere (see Moon and Spencer’s textbook, for
example). If you want to see examples of what such solutions look like see,
for example, Alex’s 1973 paper. This is just as well since one observes
exactly this set of solutions in nature (with the notable exception of
infinite plane waves – the usual textbook example!). Even more importantly
reversing this process and putting general covariance in properly to a general
relativistic fluid, one gets the Maxwell equations out (this I do briefly in
the first of my SPIE papers last year). That is one may use the relativistic
nature of space and time to derive the Maxwell equations (or vice versa – the
Maxwell equations were always covariant). If one drops relativity one obtains
a slightly different set of equations, modified by the Doppler effect with
respect to the medium, which are similar to the more complicated equations of
fluid mechanics with respect to a medium. This is not what one observes in
nature, in free space, for light. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Now
one can introduce fixes for this, some of which (Lorentz contraction for
example) work in the direction of travel. I’m not aware of any that work
properly for such things as the perpendicular transformations of field, such
as that we are discussing for the angular momentum, <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>or for the reciprocal apparent time
dilation discussed above but that could just be ignorance on my part and I am
willing to be corrected. The big points for me, are a) that relativity is
everywhere consistent with experiment and b) that proper relativity works for
the highly accelerated frames I am using to describe my double loop model, and
nothing else I’m aware of does.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Regards,
John W.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Comments
in red below ....<BR></SPAN></P>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" class=MsoNormal align=center><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">
<HR align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">
General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame@starweave.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:31 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] double photon cycle,
subjective v objective realities</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Hi
Chip, Richard, John D,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">[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
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">John
D,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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).
<BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#ff0000><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Not so. Bound photon transforms as
does real photon. <FONT color=#ff0000>M</FONT>omentum up, "radius" down. Note
the quotes. Product constant.<BR></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Richard,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#ff0000>Agreed. However, in the absence of
evidence that angular momentum is not conserved I would rather take it as a
good working hypothesis that it is.<BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"></SPAN></FONT></P><FONT
color=#ff0000></FONT>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#ff0000><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"></SPAN></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Chip,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#ff0000><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Nope, this is not so. As I said
above I think this is where you "go into the mist". There is no need for a
causal mechanism, as in the muon frame everything is perfectly normal. At
least this is the <FONT color=#ff0000>view from the perspective</FONT> <FONT
color=#ff0000>of</FONT> normal relativity.<BR></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">
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></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#ff0000><BR></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#ff0000>See above.</FONT><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#ff0000>This is a good inference based on your
(incorrect in my view) starting point that there "must be some physical
effect".</FONT><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#ff0000><BR></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#ff0000>Agreed here. We are collectively moving
forwards.</FONT><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Best
regards to all,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Grahame</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#ff0000>Regards, to all again,
John.</FONT><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 16px">
<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"><B>From:</B> <A
title=johnduffield@btconnect.com href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
target=_blank>John Duffield</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target=_blank>'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"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt">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:</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><IMG
id=Picture_x0020_1 src="cid:F07AFB8FDB9C4C96BAF4BBBDA7226648@vincent"
width=414 height=237></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt">
</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt">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. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt">Regards</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 14pt">JohnD</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer
wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at grahame@starweave.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>