<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Thanks Richard,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>for illustrating so clearly what I
said in my latest email: "As long as we have a mainstream scientific community
that's not prepared to review SR critically in light of more recent findings,
and will defend SR with any argument that comes to hand (however tenuous)...".
Right on cue, you have waded in with a totally inappropriate comparison and
given nebulous generalisations presumably intended to nullify my
carefully-chosen specifics.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Your response to my precisely
defined dual-perspective scenario is (apparently) to propose that it is directly
comparable to passing linear photons through a slit. Your rationale (such
as it is) for this change of subject is the truism that different frequencies of
TEM waves pass through such a slit with different degrees of success. [See
my quote above: "... any argument that comes to hand (however
tenuous)...".] The differences between my proposed scenario and your
attempted substitute are too numerous to detail, I will point to just one: my
scenario proposes two reference frames from which the same sequence of events
may be assessed; could you please identify the two reference frames from which
your proposed corresponding scenario may likewise be assessed? Your vague
generalisations in your final para do nothing to elucidate that point and appear
to be thrown in only to muddy the water - not what I would hope of an incisive
scientific analysis.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I shan't trouble you any further on
this subject. If you can't see my point by now then I doubt that you ever
will. For my part I can't see any point in my studying your model which is
based on a paradigm that I consider to be fundamentally flawed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards,</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>----- 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=richgauthier@gmail.com href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard
Gauthier</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> ; <A title=grahame@starweave.com
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:23
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] On particle
radius</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hi Grahame and all,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>you wrote:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> I think we will agree that experimentally, x-rays will pass
easily through the holes of a metal sheet filled with 1-inch holes while the
same metal sheet will essentially block (or at least very highly attenuate)
long-wavelength radio waves. So photons (if they exist) have an effective
radius which is related to their wavelength. To get more specific, my model of
a photon (see “Transluminal energy quantum models of the photon and the
electron” ( at <A
href="https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron">https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron</A>
) has a superluminal quantum particle moving helically with speed c sqrt(2) at
45 degrees having circulating momentum P= (h/lambda) sqrt(2). This
superluminal quantum particle has a longitudinal momentum component p=
h/lambda (that of a photon) as well as a transverse momentum component
p=h/lambda (also because of the 45 degree helical angle.) One helical
turn of the photon model has a longitudinal length of lambda, so the radius of
the 45-degree helical trajectory is by simple geometry lambda/2pi . The spin
of this photon model is R x Ptransverse = lambda/2pi x h/lambda =
h/2pi = hbar, the experimental photon spin component (it can be -hbar also if
the helix turns in the opposite direction.) There are other photon models of
course by other photon modelers, but I think that these photon models
generally have an effective radius in the range of lambda/2pi also. I also
propose that my photon model (both spin-1 and spin-1/2 models) generate
quantum waves in the transverse direction of motion of the photon model, which
explains interference and diffraction effects of photons. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> My relativistic electron model (as you know) is composed of
a helically circulating spin-1/2 charged photon. My detailed spin-1/2 charged
photon model has half the radius of my spin-1 photon model above (so it is
lambda/4pi instead of lambda/2pi) and makes two helical turns instead of one
turn per longitudinal wavelength. Its superluminal charged quantum particle
also moves at 45 degrees, with the superluminal quantum particle carrying
momentum P= (h/lambda)sqrt(2) like in the spin 1 photon model. The spin of the
spin-1/2 photon model is calculated in the same way as above for the spin-1
photon model , and gives spin = R x Ptransverse = lambda/4pi
x h/lambda = h/4pi = hbar/2 which is the spin 1/2 hbar of the
spin-1/2 photon model. The radius of the spin !/2 charged photon of energy E
can also be written as R=lambda/4pi =hc/(4pi E).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> When this superluminal spin-1/2 charged photon model is
combined with my "generic” relativistic-electron-model's spin-1/2 charged
photon model (which describes only the trajectory of the spin-1/2 charged
photon composing an electron), the total electron model's radius (generic
spin-1/2 photon's helical radius + detailed spin-1/2 photon’s helical radius)
of the relativistic electron model is given by R=Ro(1/gamma^2 + 1 gamma) =
(Lcompton/4pi)(1/gamma^2 +1/gamma) --> Lcompton/(4pi gamma) = hc/(4pi
E) at highly relativistic velocities where E is the total energy of the
electron (or spin 1/2 charged photon) and 1/gamma^2 is dominated by 1/gamma.
Why does this matter? Because the radius of the spin-1 photon model with the
same energy E as the relativistic electron model decreases as
Rphoton=lambda/2pi = hc/(2pi E). So the electron model's and the photon
model’s radii both decrease as 1/E at high energies (compared to the
electron’s rest energy), but the relativistic spin-1/2 electron model’s radius
is half the spin-1 photon’s radius for the same high energy
particles. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> So there’s nothing surprising about the radius of a relativistic
electron decreasing as 1/E (or as 1/gamma , since E=gamma mc^2 for an
electron) with increasing electron energy E , since both the spin-1 and
spin-1/2 photon-model radii decrease as 1/E with increasing photon energy E,
and the electron is composed of a spin-1/2 charged photon. It WOULD be
surprising if the electron model’s radius R in the transverse direction did
NOT decrease as 1/E at highly relativistic velocities even as the radius of
the spin-1/2 charged photon composing the electron model does decreases as l/E
.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Shifting gears back to your questions above: The amount of
diffraction of electrons at a single-slit or double-slit apparatus (with
different de Broglie wavelengths that depend on electron speed relative to the
slits) or photons (with different photon wavelengths as measured in the frame
of the slits) is predicted quantitatively by these experimentally-measured
wavelengths (which however are related to the theoretical radii of the
incoming electrons or photons in the models above.) The speed of the incoming
photons will always be c as measured in the frame of the slits independent of
the photon wavelength, and the speed of the incoming electrons will always be
less than c.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Richard</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Jan 9, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</A>>
wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Thank you kindly, Richard.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 size=2>Grahame</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">-----
Original Message -----<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,128) 2px solid; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"
type="cite">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(228,228,228); FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A title=richgauthier@gmail.com
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto: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 title=grahame@starweave.com
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Monday, January 09, 2017 6:14
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Re: [General] On particle
radius</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hello Grahame,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> 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.) </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> 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. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> 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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Richard</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>