<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1484509299632_2794">Stoe model of the electron spin 1/2 observation</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1484509299632_2795">http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1735</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1484509299632_2796">This paper models electrons as assembly of photons. Whe should remember that the Stern-Gerlack experiment is the defining experiment. The idea that an electron has a "spin" is highly model dependent. The idea tht he electron is actually spinning is undemonstrated. That is, another model of how the passsing through an inhomogenious MAGNETIC field can have 2 possible exit directions. This is possible classically if the electron has 2 magnetic North poles - one for each photon direction. </div><div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1484509299632_2797">Hodge</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1484509299632_2798"><br id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1484509299632_2799"></div> <div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div dir="ltr"><font size="2" face="Arial"> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 8:05 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins@gmail.com> wrote:<br></font></div> <br><br> <div class="y_msg_container"><div id="yiv6127013646"><base><style>#yiv6127013646 #yiv6127013646 --
_filtered #yiv6127013646 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv6127013646 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
#yiv6127013646
#yiv6127013646 p.yiv6127013646MsoNormal, #yiv6127013646 li.yiv6127013646MsoNormal, #yiv6127013646 div.yiv6127013646MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv6127013646 a:link, #yiv6127013646 span.yiv6127013646MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv6127013646 a:visited, #yiv6127013646 span.yiv6127013646MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv6127013646 p
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv6127013646 span.yiv6127013646EmailStyle17
{color:black;}
#yiv6127013646 span.yiv6127013646EmailStyle19
{color:black;}
#yiv6127013646 .yiv6127013646MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;}
_filtered #yiv6127013646 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
#yiv6127013646 div.yiv6127013646WordSection1
{}
#yiv6127013646 </style><div><div class="yiv6127013646WordSection1"><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Hi Dr Grahame Blackwell</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">You have made some good points. </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">At one time I thought the electron was composed of a circulating photon which had its spin altered so that the negative portion of the electric field lines always point outward.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">I am no longer of that opinion. There are several reasons for the change of opinion. Just as there are several reasons I changed my opinion about SR.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">The energy configuration of the electron is different from that of a confined photon in several ways. There is no reason to hold onto the full energy configuration of the photon when modeling the electron, in fact it leads to difficulties and errors in my opinion. It seems that the laws which govern the movement of energy in space support a few simple configurations. The electron’s rest mass/energy comes from the threshold which space imposed on this specific configuration of energy.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Yes. The concept of radius is potentially misleading when discussing the electron simply because it consists of a set of fields with a finite focus point. But we are able to calculate the mean transport radius of the momentum density, which is confined and rotating, and which would yield a spin angular momentum of ½. If we assume the energy in the electron to display the same momentum as the energy in the photon of the same energy, then this is a pretty simple calculation.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">I am not sure the idea that the momentum internal to the electron remains constant when the electron is accelerated is correct. When we accelerate the electron we add energy to the electron. The energy we add is added directly to the energy which is already in the electron. The new momentum term with energy added is still Total Energy/c, so we now have more momentum, which means the radius must be smaller to yield spin ½.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Consider that space only allows electrons to exist at rest at a specific rest energy. Any electron with more energy than this is moving. In fact space requires an electron with a specific amount of energy (above the rest energy) to always move at the same speed. The law of inertia is built into the particle. The confined propagation pattern of the energy in the electron is altered from the rest condition by the addition of energy. Once energy is added the electron must move, it can no longer be at rest. So the added energy becomes part of the energy in the electron. Which in turn increases the momentum of the energy in the electron.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">It seems this increase in energy must therefore also do two things. 1) Increase the confinement force due to increased energy. 2) Reduce the radius to maintain a spin ½ configuration.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">This issue of the confinement force seems to be of great importance. For Planck’s rule to hold, E=hv, there must be a force related to energy. This force is simply the equal and opposite reaction of space which opposes the displacement which energy causes. Such a force clearly defines a particle confinement mechanism.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">I could continue, but this email would become quite lengthy.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Thank you for your thoughts and insight. I have looked at this issue from so many different perspectives but still find it fascinating. For now I still feel there are very many indications that the radius of the electron must contract with velocity. I am not yet able to see how the pieces could all fit any other way.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">And no, I do not think there is a photon inside an electron. I think the energy of an electron can be released and become a photon. But you can’t change the configuration of the energy of a photon, convert it to an electron, and have it still be a photon.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Thoughts?</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Chip</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646yqt6971814140" id="yiv6127013646yqt52563"><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;"><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, January 14, 2017 5:41 PM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b> [General] Reply to Chip on particle radius & spin</span></div></div></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Chip et al.,</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">With reference to your notes below on particle radius and spin: theyre's more to say on the whole radius thing, which I will hopefully add shortly, but I feel I should respond to your notes since I said "a few days" almost a week ago.</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">It's been noted by others and myself before that a photon-formed electron will have spin (/ angular momentum) by virtue of (a) the momentum of the photon acting cyclically, and (b) the angular momentum of the photon itself. One apparent anomaly is that, as the speed of the electron increases towards c, the formative photon becomes increasingly linear, being fully linear at that limiting speed (which can of course only be theoretical, a limiting state never reached); this creates the apparent anomaly that, in the limit, the electron will have at least the full spin-1 of its formative photon. Even at much lesser electron speeds the photon's own spin component must be a consideration.</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">The only possiblility by which this could be nullified (since I think we're all agreed that a static electron will have spin-1/2 just by virtue of the photon's linear momentum) is that the formation of the electron must surely cancel out that photon spin component, either by the cyclic motion of the photon acting in the opposite sense or by a rotation (spinning motion), in the opposite sense, of the electron itself. This has to be left for further thought (I have some thoughts on it) - but it clearly doesn't add to the spin of the electron which, as agreed, is 1/2 just from photon linear momentum.</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Back to that momentum-induced spin: the static electron has spin-1/2 due to photon linear momentum. As the electron moves, progressively faster, the momentum of that photon increases due to increasing electron speed (and so increasing photon frequency). BUT - and this is the absolutely crucial point - the motion of that photon is now helical, a combination of cyclic and linear. ONLY the cyclic component of that photon momentum will contribute to electron spin (/ angular momentum) - the linear component manifests as the linear momentum of the electron itself, gamma m v (where m is rest-mass); that cyclic component is Eo/c - WHATEVER the speed of the electron - this is quite apparent from the 'relativistic' energy-momentum relation. In other words, in order to maintain that spin-1/2 for the electron, the radius of the electron also has to be kept constant, as the cyclic linear-momentum component of the formative photon is similarly constant. If the radius of the electron is reduced then its angular momentum (/ spin) will be reduced in direct proportion. This analysis totally supports the view that electron diameter remains invariant (which is also supported by other considerations - more on that later).</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">[In brief: to regard the full increased momentum of the higher-frequency photon as contributing to electron angular momentum is an over-simplification.]</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">As Albrecht and others have observed in recent posts, experimental evidence interpreted as electron diameter is at best an indication of cross-section of effective consequences; diameter inferred from such experimental readings cannot be taken as a definitive statement of particle size - there is clearly a lot of 'wiggle room' (literally!) in this. The observations above on invariant electron spin would appear to be rather more precisely definitive.</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">With regard to the 'relativistic' effective total mass of the moving particle, I'd wholly agree that this is gamma m (where m is again rest-mass) - but we don't need to go via spin considerations to get to that, it's implicit in the raised frequency of that formative photon, in line with E = mc^2 {which again is not at all dependent on SR - but that's another story].</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Best regards,</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Grahame</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">----- Original Message ----- </span></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal" style="background:#E4E4E4;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" title="grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</a> </span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">To:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</a> </span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Sent:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> Sunday, January 08, 2017 10:10 PM</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Subject:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> Re: [General] On particle radius</span></div></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Hi Chip,</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Many thanks indeed for your succinct and well-presented case ('succinct' is clearly a useful word in this discussion - as well as a good strategy!).</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">I need to go through this carefully and thoroughly and see how it relates to my own understanding of the situation. As we're all agreed, we all have things to learn from each other and (here I DO agree with Vivian's metaphor) each have some aspect of the elephant (in the room?) to contribute. I'm really looking forward to considering what you've said below and hopefully assimilating it into a fuller understanding on my own part of the issues that need to be taken into consideration.</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">I'll come back to you when I've processed it thoroughly (may take a few days) and have some thoughts to offer.</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Thanks again,</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Grahame</span></div></div></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 class="yiv6127013646yqt6971814140" id="yiv6127013646yqt62940"><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">----- Original Message ----- </span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal" style="background:#E4E4E4;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" title="chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</a> </span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">To:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</a> </span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Sent:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> Sunday, January 08, 2017 9:22 PM</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Subject:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> Re: [General] On particle radius</span></div></div><div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"> </div></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black;">Hi Dr Graham Blackwell</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">I like the way you clearly and succinctly write.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Let me explain some of the reasons why I feel the radius of the electron decreases with velocity.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">In order to accelerate the electron at rest, we must apply energy (force through distance).</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">The only way to apply energy to the electron, when we get down to the basis, is to add energy to its existing confined wave structure. Planck’s rule suggests that this confined wave structure with energy added has a wavelength which is (h c)/E. If this is the case and the momentum of this wave remains p=E/c, then in order to be a spin ½ hbar particle, it seems the electron must have a radius which is r = (h c)/(4 pi E). Where E is the new total energy with velocity throughout this paragraph.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Then when we calculate the mass of this particle from its confined momentum (as Richard has pointed out) we get the expected relativistic (total) mass of the moving particle. m = E/(r w c) = E/c^2= E Eo Uo. Which is exactly equivalent to m = y m. [where w = c/r (angular frequency)].</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">This is the only scenario I have found where all of the expected parameters are accommodated, and I have searched extensively for other possibilities.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">We also note that the scattering cross-section of an electron at relativistic velocities is very small, and agrees with these assumptions quite well.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">In order for the electron radius to remain the same size with velocity I think we have to ignore things which seem quite important, and these specific things appear to be required in order to tie several of the pieces of the puzzle together. It seems the picture is just not complete unless the radius of the electron is reduced with velocity.</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Thoughts?</span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Chip</span></div></div><div class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div></blockquote><div align="center" class="yiv6127013646MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;"><hr align="center" size="2" width="100%"></div></div></div></div><br><div class="yqt6971814140" id="yqt60275">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com">jchodge@frontier.com</a><br clear="none"><a href="<a shape="rect" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a><br clear="none"></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>