<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)"><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: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.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
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 Chandra<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 helping to guide the discussion toward a productive goal.<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 we share our perspective on the many various aspects of the puzzle, it has become evident to me that we must build on a good foundation, and that the present foundations have some limiting flaws.<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'>Not only is the subject of relativity clouding our vision of the universe, so also are part of the foundations of QM.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>So it is my opinion that we must overhaul the basis, and rebuild a version of QM on causal principles, using painstaking effort to form an accurate classical physics foundation for a QM which actually reflects reality.<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'>We have been skirting about the edges of this endeavor, touching on parts of it here and there, but Richard and others have shown some light, in various ways, on how we may be able to accomplish many pieces of this quest.<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'>There are times when I wish that individuals like Robert Close were also part of this discussion group.<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'>If you have not read his works I do strongly recommend it, a few are attached.<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'>Warmest Regards<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><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>Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 10, 2017 11:45 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Debesh Choudhury <debesh.choudhury@gmail.com><br><b>Subject:</b> [General] Merging Classical and Quantum Physics<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Dear Colleagues:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> We need to maintain our collective editorial vision to guide the direction of our discussions towards worthy and achievable goals. People involved in this forum are putting their creative times into this discussions; which is of great value for our collective enlightenment and re-direction of our thinking to advance physics. Real advancement <b><i>will come only by challenging the foundational postulates behind all the working theories</i></b>; not by preserving them at all cost because they have been “working: and they are so elegant! All of our theories eventually become stagnant because we construct the founding postulates with our limited knowledge. But our knowledge advances as our measuring technologies advances. We are now at new epoch for reconstructing physics from the bottom up. My personal opinion is that the so called Classical Physics and Quantum Physics are much more closer to nature’s ontological realities compared to the theories of Relativity. So, our creative efforts and time will be better served if we focus more on <b><i>merging Classical and QM physics</i></b>; Neither of these two “working” fields are complete without our successfully merging them. It is the same physical processes that are behind the emergence of all the measured phenomena. So, they are inseparably connected at the foundational level.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>The universe is not physically “space-time” four dimensional, irrespective of the elegance of the accepted mathematical theories. Physics Essays has a good number of articles published over the recent few years; several of which I have facilitated. You should down load them for reading. The latest one is not yet published. So I am attaching it. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>It is <b><i>time</i></b> for us to recognize that the running time “t” is not an operational primary physical parameter of anything in this universe; whereas everything in this universe is built out of elementary oscillators with their own characteristic frequencies. The frequency “f” of many entities is accessible to us for alteration, to some extent. We invert the frequency “f” to get temporal “period”. So, conceptually, the “period” (dt = 1/f) is accessible for alterations; but that does not imply the running time “t” is an integral physical parameter of the universe. This has become a serious cultural bottleneck of physics. We have achieved fantastic advances starting with Maxwell’s grand success in deriving the EM wave equation through brilliant manipulation of the rules of differential relations of experimentally determined four electromagnetic relations. Unfortunately, he did not derive it from the fundamental assumption that “1/(Epsilon)” is the electric tension [equivalent to mechanical tension “T” for a stretched string] and “Mu” as the magnetic restoration force [equivalent to “mass per unit length” for a stretched string]. It is now trivial to emulate the derivation of the EM wave equation emulating the steps for deriving the wave equation for a stretched string [see my book “Causal Physics”].<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Let us initiate a discussions line on how to merge Classical and Quantum Physics.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><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 [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 10, 2017 9:53 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] On particle radius<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Dr Graham Bell<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'>Pardon me for still being on the soapbox.<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'>I find myself asking why it is that scientists would <u>favor</u> a theory not based on demonstrable cause and effect.<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'>In this group we find ourselves discussing particles of matter and how they are constructed of<u> energy which is confined and moving at the speed of light</u>.<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'>If this is how particles are made then there is an inescapable, built in, requirement for a specific form of “relativity”. <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 form of relativity is <u>not</u> SR. Both cannot be correct. If we had both this form of relativity and SR then we would have to apply Lorentz corrections twice to all motion (y^2). But experiment has shown that we can only apply these corrections once if we want to get the right answers. <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'>So (if matter is made of confined light speed energy) we are left with only </span><span style='font-size:16.0pt;color:black'>one</span><span style='color:black'> choice for what form of relativity actually exists in our universe. <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'>In this form of relativity, I think the speed of the slit will have no effect on whether the electron can pass, it is only the speed of the electron which would make a difference.<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'>I am now understanding more of why we have not been making more progress in our physical understanding.<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'>I guess it is hard for us to see when we chose to wear the hallowed goggles of ingrained mistakes.<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><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 [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 09, 2017 5:20 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] On particle radius<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Thank you kindly, Richard.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>I shall continue to persist* until the light of reason shows clearly for all to see through the cracks ever more apparent in a century-old metaphysical myth (* though not necessarily with those who prefer to remain in the dark).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>The point in question is that, even allowing for probabilistic criteria, there are likely to be rather more fast-moving electrons making it through an aperture, of the width that you define for electrons at that speed, than there will be of slower electrons that, according to your figures, are greater in cross-section than that aperture; this is a point on which you have expressed your agreement. You are now proposing that we should view a situation in which photons are passed through an aperture as a suitable model for this scenario, that the two situations are broadly the same because they both involve waves.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>If you're able to complete this picture by: (a) explaining how linear photons may be passed through an aperture at differing speeds, as are those electrons (or, equivalently, how that aperture can move at different speeds relative to linear photons - given the SR view that said photons are always at speed c with respect to anything material); and (b) how linear photons similarly change their diameter (????) at different speeds (????), so as to make that situation comparable - then I'll cease to ask any further. But until you answer the question that I've asked, rather than substituting a scenario of your own that's in no way comparable, then I can't consider my question to have been addressed, let alone resolved.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Even allowing a degree of statistical variation at the individual quantum level, on the macro scale outcomes of the sort of scenario I originally described conform pretty closely to expectations as given by deterministic principles. So if we think in terms of a few billions of electrons, rather than just one, attempting passage through that orifice at speeds 0.9c and then 0.1c - my question still stands.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>----- Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></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 style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" title="richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>To:</span></b><span 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> ; <a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" title="grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sent:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Monday, January 09, 2017 6:14 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Subject:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Re: [General] On particle radius<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hello Grahame,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Thanks for your persistence. If you stand next to or walk, run, or fly past an ongoing photon double-slit experiment with the photons supplied by a laser, your speed with respect to the experimental apparatus will not affect the fact that photons are being detected at the screen behind the slits, with the photon detection locations spatially distributed statistically according to the well-known double-slit wave interference pattern. Your speed relative to the double-slit experimental apparatus will however (according to the predictions of special relativity) affect the amount of time the experiment has been running (as measured by your wristwatch) due to relativistic time dilation. Your speed relative to the apparatus will also affect your measured distance (using your own meter sticks) between the double slits and the screen, as you go by the experiment at different speeds, due to relativistic length contraction of the double-slit apparatus as viewed by you traveling at different speeds (or at speed zero with respect to the apparatus.) <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> The same will be true if electrons are used rather than photons in a double-slit experiment (whose slits may however have to be adjusted in size and separation because electrons are going through the slits instead of photons and the electrons' de Broglie wavelength and the photons' wavelength may be different. But the double-slit statistical wave pattern of electrons detected at the electron detection screen behind the slits will be the same for electrons (as predicted by their de Broglie wavelength for their speed relative to the slits) as for photons at a photon detection screen (using the photon wavelength for the interference pattern predictions). Whether you are standing beside the apparatus, moving with the electrons, or have some other velocity relative to the apparatus and electrons, the double-slit statistical pattern of electrons detected at the screen will still be produced.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> According to my electron model the oncoming spin-1/2 charged photons generate the de Broglie wavelength quantum matter waves that (in some informational sense at least) would go through the double slits, so the predicted results at the screen using my electron model would be the same as the predicted results using the standard electron description. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> The same question that you are asking about the moving electron's transverse radius versus slit aperture size for various observer velocities can also be asked about the photon’s transverse radius versus slit aperture size, as measured by different observers traveling at different speeds relative to the double-slit photon or electron apparatus. You cannot expect a more precise answer to the electron question than to the photon question if the electron is composed of a variety of photon. The answer to the photon question and to the electron question would be basically the same. That answer would be: use the predictions of quantum wave interference and diffraction produced by the electron or photon waves to predict what pattern of electrons or photons can be detected at the screen or elsewhere in the double-slit experiment.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Jan 9, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Just realised that my reply only went to Richard.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Since his response went to all, some may find my reply of interest.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Best regards,</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Grahame</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>===========</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>----- Original Message -----<span class=apple-converted-space> </span> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:#E4E4E4'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" title="grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>To:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" title="richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sent:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Monday, January 09, 2017 1:30 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Subject:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Re: [General] On particle radius<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Hi Richard and all,</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Thanks for your detailed response, most of which seems to be a re-run of your reasoning that you've presented before rather than relating to my specific question (more on that below). As with Chip's comments, I'll study this with interest in the light of my own findings and understanding.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>With regard to my 'aperture' question/thought-experiment: I agree completely that of course there's a probabilistic element to passage of the electron through the gap - that's a good point that you make. Unfortunately it doesn't do anything to reduce the significance of my argument.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>In your final para you observe: "<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='color:navy'>I think one would find a higher probability of finding fast-moving (v=0.9c) electrons on the other side of a small enough aperture as compared to the probability of finding slow-moving (v=0.1c) electrons on the other side of the same small aperture</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>"; on this we are agreed (if we accept the premise of reduced particle size with speed - which I don't, but we'll run with that here). If, in accordance with SR principles, we now shift to the perspective of the electron's rest-frame, what we get is static electrons having a higher probability of passing through a fast-moving orifice than they do of passing through that orifice when it's moving more slowly. How do you explain that, if it's not by virtue of that orifice increasing in size with increasing speed? Probabilities don't simply change without circumstances changing, and this appears to be the only credible explanation for such variation.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>So I'm still waiting for the explanation as to why that aperture increases in size with increasing speed, which appears to be a necessary condition for satisfaction of SR reciprocity of reference frames (without which SR breaks down). [If you have an alternative explanation for probability of passage of static electrons through an orifice varying in this way with speed of motion of that orifice, then of course that would be of interest.]</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Best regards,</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Grahame</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><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;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>----- Original Message -----<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:#E4E4E4'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" title="richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>To:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span 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><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>;<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" title="grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sent:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Monday, January 09, 2017 6:26 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Subject:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Re: [General] On particle radius<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Hi Grahame and all,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> Thanks for your question about how I justify the reduced transverse radius of the helical trajectory of the charged photon model with velocity as R=Ro/gamma^2, where Ro=hbar/2mc (See below for the aperture question.) All electron modelers need to keep in mind the experimentally determined maximum size of the electron of about 10^-18 m as measured in high energy electron-electron scattering experiments (at about 30GeV). The R=Ro/gamma^2 result above for the trajectory radius of the spin 1/2 charged photon, when added to the actual radius R1=L/4pi = Ro/gamma of my detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model (described briefly in this forum in the past), gives a total transverse helical radius Rtotal = Ro/gamma^2 + Ro/gamma = Ro ( 1/gamma^2 + 1/gamma) where Ro=hbar/2mc . This total transverse radius Rtotal of the charged photon electron model is dominated by the spin 1/2 photon's radius in high electron energy scattering to give Rtotal -> Ro/gamma , consistent with these experimental results.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> On the theoretical side, the R=Ro/gamma^2 result is derived from setting the circulating charged photon's energy E=hf equal to electron's total energy formula E=gamma mc^2 and solving for the photon's wavelength L=h/(gamma mc). This result of decreasing charged photon wavelength L with increasing electron velocity is used together with the increasing double-looping frequency f=2 gamma mc^2 with increasing electron velocity of the helically double-looping photon . The result is a quantitative geometrical helical model for the trajectory of the spin 1/2 charged photon. The helical radius R=Ro/gamma^2 of the trajectory emerges naturally from both the increasing double-looping frequency and the decreasing wavelength of the spin 1/2 charged photon with increasing electron speed. I showed that this result is also the case for Vivian’s helically-circulating-photon particle model when it is corrected to include the decreasing wavelength of the circulating photon associated with the particle’s increasing speed, which he had left out of his derivation. The de Broglie wavelength L-compton = h/(gamma mv) falls out easily from this spin 1/2 charged photon wavelength L=h/(gamma mc) result. I don’t think John and Martin used this reduced photon-wavelength relationship L=h/gamma mc in their 1997 electron-modeling article. You also don’t use it in your particle model. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> Your circulating-photon-like object particle model maintains a constant transverse radius as the speed (and energy) of the moving particle increases. The frequency of helical rotation of your photon-like object therefore actually decreases as 1/gamma with increasing particle speed. But based on energy considerations the circulating photon frequency of a helically-moving-photon model should INCREASE with the particle’s energy in proportion to gamma due to E=gamma mc^2 for the total energy of a moving particle with mass. De Broglie’s own derivation of the de Broglie wavelength incorporated both an increasing frequency (due to increasing electron energy) with electron speed, and also a seemingly contradictory decreasing frequency with increasing electron speed (due to the relativistic time dilation effect.) He rationalized both of these frequencies using his “harmony of phases” argument. But your particle model doesn’t contain the increasing frequency with photon energy or particle energy at all (as far as I know). We have previously discussed the problem of your particle model’s spin at relativistic energies. If your particle is composed of a spin 1 hbar circulating photon (or even a spin 1/2 hbar circulating photon) , either of these spins will add to the orbital spin of your electron model that (due to its constant radius with increasing particle speed) remains a constant 1/2 hbar with increasing speed of your electron model. This gives your electron model a total spin of 1 1/2 hbar or 1 hbar (depending the spin 1 or spin 1/2 of the photon model you use) at highly relativistic velocities, which contradicts the experimental spin 1/2 for an electron at all velocities. With my model (and Vivian’s corrected model) the orbital contribution of spin 1/2 hbar (which is correct for a slowly moving electron) decreases rapidly to zero (as 1/gamma^2) at relativistic particle velocities, and the spin 1/2 of the helically circulating photon becomes the spin 1/2 of the electron model itself at relativistic energies.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> As for the question of whether a fast-moving (with v=0.9c) electron can go through an aperture with a radial size that might block a slower moving electron (with v=0.1c) , I think that one has to appeal to the photon-like quantum wave nature of the electron to answer the question. My charged-photon electron model is proposed to generate de Broglie wavelength quantum waves in its longitudinal direction of motion that would interact with an aperture or slit (or 2 slits) and predict (by quantum wave diffraction and interference effects) the probability of detecting electrons at a screen on the other side of the aperture, whether for slow moving electrons or for fast moving electrons. Moving electrons are not like wooden pegs that one tries to fit through various hole sizes relative to the size of the electron peg. But In general I think one would find a higher probability of finding fast-moving (v=0.9c) electrons on the other side of a small enough aperture as compared to the probability of finding slow-moving (v=0.1c) electrons on the other side of the same small aperture. There should be no contradiction in this result, whether an observer is in the inertial frame of the moving electron, or stands next to the aperture that individual electrons are passing (or not passing) through.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>_______________________________________________</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><span style='background:white'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><span style='background:white'><a href="</span></span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>"></span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><span style='background:white'>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br><span style='background:white'></a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote></div></body></html>