A Purely Hypothetical Question regarding Special Relativity Theory.

Vern,
I have been working on similar structures from a slightly diferent perspective but the two systems have remarkable similarities.
I was surprised to see the closeness of the mutual "electron models" . My approach to a modeling perspective (which wasn't intended to model the electron) of the electron stemmed from Stern-Gerlach transition studies. (I haven't reviewed all the topics in your main menu but what I did look at was refreshing. I used hypothetically competent SG inhomogeneous volumes to observe spin phenonmena for particles. I focused primarily on spn-1 properties but this did not result in unexpected variations for the spin 1/2 systems.

I predict that for you the slight variation I suggest will extend much further in scope and breadth than that suggested in the simplicty of the suggested change.

Let us consuder the possibilities:

The Photon :
TheHistory of Photons -

1. Old History: photons come in two packages
   • -vertical (V) and
   • - horizontal (H).
2. Vern History: Photons come in both states but at the same time.
3. Geistkiesel History: Photons come in both states but not at the same time. Pursuant to the photon state generating function Y = Y(01f) where only one state Y(1), is obsevable at a time.
   for a duration of 1/2f. The photon state varies twice with each complete wave cycle, or duty cycle.

[/COLOR]Applying this to the electron in two hole diffractions prepare yourself to modify (upscale) the wave particle duality model at least for the purposes of explaining the result of two hole diffraction.

The use of both holes as a necessary condition for the appearance of the interference pattern is unambiguous. However, prepare to observe the interference functions occuring not external to the holes but in the holes themselves.

Here is some of my recent effort as graphics rich and mathe as Vern's is word richand math poor. Both systems are relatively equivalently math freeScroll Down To Experimentl quantum transition physicsI have been working here
Two hole electron diffraction:
While the electron is crashing down on the surface of the screen containing the holes the electron's spin state generating function is in full use. I am referring to that same state function that explains the +- result observed in SG transition experiments where the motion of the electron is due primarily to magnetic forces. The mass trajectory of the elecrton must be functionally related to the charge of the electron where the electron is ultimately guided into one or the other of the holes by the local magnetic field near the holes.

Where is the source of the magnetic field, which must be specifically inhomogeneous and oriented in the proper direction in order to assure a successful transition of the elctron through the holes?

Vern,
What is the shape , the spatial distribution of the electromagnetic volume in the near vicinity of the holes due to incoming and reflected electric charge of the electron?

I assume that the electric charge is not uniform over the total volume of the electron volume. This would assure that the mix of incoming and reflected charge in an enclosed volume be spatially variant, so we have an electric field with a non-zero gradient seen by an electron passing throug as time variant and therby signalling for the personal magnetic field varying in perfect cohernce when varying in time. He.nce there is the necessary source of magnetic forces motivated by particle motions that are unbalanced over the projected surface area of the reflected charge. The electron does pick the hole before it enters much to R Feynman's claim to the converse* The process isn't a coin flip. The electron is placed at the apex of a statistically flat plane all left or right in that the coin flip, Choice of hole is made by the electron falling into one or the other directions in a perfectly flat zero pertubaion starting point where the slightest and inevitable perturbation will bias the ultimate trajectory to one or the other of the two holes defining the deep and steep force-potential well.

Remember, like in the SG transitions the electrons take one of two directions wrt the direction of the field/field gradient, and once the direction was selected it did not vary. The electron was polarized.

This happen Vern when the magnetic field of the surrounding volume is detected by the spin generating system. The polarization process does not cease the generating process. The selction of the next state is hardwired to the current state. that doesn't stop cycling through the state change cycle, but each succeedng state is the continual polarized state, as if a key had been set that selects and overides the nornmal switching choce. The selection is the identity function. The switching function is therfore not a sliding linear single motion event. Cycling and selection are minimum process parameters 1 and 2.

I should caution that considering the Y(0) state as off is unproved as in off when you turn the lights out in the kitchen. The Y(0) is unobserved, nonlocal. There is no data supporting any observed attribute to the Y(0). However, there is abundant data supporting detailed nonlocal attributes of the Y(0) and its inferred nature.

Where is the Y(0) when the electron driven to the particular hole ? The Y(0) is a nonlocal function it isn't necessarily any place, and in fact we can state that the Y(0) is not spatially significant.
The Y(0) has a local/nonlocal force exchange interface projected by the force vector of the field external to the mass . During ekectron transitioning through the length of the hole cavity the nonlocal attribnuite Y(0) is the mysterious traveller sweeping through the opposite hole. This Y(0) is functionally identified with its observed counterpart in unpolarized appearances.

My best current guess: The nonlocal attribute is made observable forcibly powered by the field forces acting on the total navigational potential of the particle. The nonlocal appearance hovers in a circle around the position of the sinking electron; when ariving at the area of the adjacent open hole, down she goes, she's undisturbed in navigation in the steep potential, well, a lover's kiss can send her freely spinning freely just as well.

With one hole the distribution on the screen is pure Gasussian simple and of minimum complexity. Mostly it is left-right with more toward the center. This suggest a linear scanning process . . left to right to left . . . where most time is spent in the middle than the extreme left right but nonlocal navigation updates come in a single line located as far as I can tell directly from behind. Its not like the two hole case where someone's there to ring the bell, here her navigator's has done gone blind and she's headng straight to hell. Add a hole and we observe unique plethora, of path way , there, which the electron's bound-agreed to take.

Internal vibratory motion of the electron is not a random vibration of some rubbery or near rigid volume/surface. The electron time varying vibration is directionally phase linked in complex complcity as observed in two hole diffraction. The electron is a machine . The electron's intrinsic storing of vibration impulses is a complex electro-mechanical process.
Do you see?

There's a limited list of future clues, to be! practical possibities! that's the pattern on the screen.


Action limits of the electron.
Here the + & - states alternatively share observed states in an egalitarian & rigidly monitored schedule: each state follows its predecessor slavishly. State changes, after polarization and during transition in the field volume, are prevented by a hardwired preference for the current polarized state.

*(Chapter 1 Vol III "Lectures on Physics", Feiynman, Leighton and Sands [note chapter 5 is self contained and complete in providing transition results for virtually all spin-1 events])

The functions of Y(10f) are purely electron-mass trajectory navigational -
the Y(10f) speak with the wizards of oz, there, far beyond the screen.

Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I saw your expanded ideas relating to the above on your web site. Interesting ! I can visualize how it might work; but I don't think that's what's happening. It could be that the electron like the photon goes through both holes at the same time. If it did the electron wouldn't be a point; the point may simply be the most likely place where an interaction can occurr.

We could say that parts of the complete object go through both holes, then based upon favorable or unfavorable phase relationships between the surviving pieces that made it through the holes and the target, an absorbtion may happen at the favorable place on the target.

That's pure speculation, but so far pure speculation is all I've seen that might explain the observations. This includes that standard model schemes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

“ The mass trajectory of the electron must be functionally related to the charge of the electron where the electron is ultimately guided into one or the other of the holes by the local magnetic field near the holes. ”​

To speculate that the “point” may be the most likely place of intersection requires:

1. That the electron mass separate through some mechanism that recognizes the two holes and the need to split, and
2. that the separated mass of the electron reforms into an identifiable unit after transition and,
3. that the point of contact on the pattern screen is where all the mass of the electron funnels through such that the electron now appears a reformed mass point.

The speculation of the model structure should be rationally imposed, i.e. supported by experiment and also in a form less speculative than the previous model structure.

Remember the only the existence of the two holes vs one hole is the only parameter change that led to the statement that “the electron passes through two holes” at the same time. The physical nature of the electron was speculated consistent with the two-hole condition. A more accurate (less specific) observation is: ” Crucial functions of the electron independently transit through both holes at the same time.”
Also, the electron goes through both holes as you have stated means what ?

• the mass goes through one hole and
• the charge through another , or
• the mass and charge( represented by the charge cloud) are separated where some of each go through each hole

Some objections

• No mechanism to measure the proportions of the electron entity are suggested.
• the energy required for electron destruction is huge (collision processes).
• the electron must necessarily and minimally, assess the nature of the holes
  • diameter,
  • separation distance.
• All the above is in direct contradiction of the observed stability of the charge and electron mass.
• all the above are in contradiction of observations of grossly perturbed mass and charge occur only at extreme energy conditions: high energy collision where charge is always conserved.

Your response was limited to “may be most likely . . “ contrast this with the objections here.

Exactly what parts go through the holes? (See above).
Once we have an electron source, two holes and a scintillation screen and a few points on the screen the pattern is defined and ‘favorable’ and ’ unfavorable’ phases differences become meaningless as used. Likewise, the phase differences are a statistical term and all the QM structure provides no clue to the structure of the electron. QM forces the use of speculation with no redeeming value. I would think that your model neatly encapsulated in the spherical schematic would necessarily be discarded as an affront to observed experimental results by QM theorists and the majority consensus reflected in the standard model.

I should have mentioned that the simplicity of assuming the generation of spin states of the particles is an intrinsic function of the multi-state particles, universally, and is not proportional to the vast scope of the affects. . Now let’s remove some speculation regarding nonlocal elements of particle structure.[x as used is one of three ‘direction indications’ either +, +/- or -.]

A +S state particle transitioning through an unobstructed T segment does so as: +S -> xT -> +S . This tells us of the necessity of assigning nonlocal elements to the structure observed as +S say arbitrarily, 00[+S]. The nonlocal requirement comes from the failure to observe the forces that guarantees the reformation of the +S state. Now, if nonlocality is a functional reality in qm processes then absolutely necessary is the existence of nonlocal/local interfaces. The mysterious nonlocal forces must be absorbed by the local attributes somewhere in the local environment in order that the nonlocal forces affect the local status of the particle.
Your exclaimed "Interesting!" remark did not go by unnoticed. Thanx,

Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Vern, Just a graphical representaion of what is occuring, The rotated arrows are the magnetic spin vectors point where the field takes them or where it took them.

This one is an S -> T -> S transition.
The wide open segment functions as if "wasn't there" per Feynman.
Where is the information that guides the needle vector back to the input state?
Any speculations?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Obtructed and unobstructed.
From what source is the force that generates a permanent change of state? .
Where is this force applied?

This one is an S ->T -> T + B -> T transition where B are the obstructions in the T segment on the right.
Obstructed or unobstructed that is the question?

Does QM predict the same results predicted here as 100% certain also?

Geistkiesel

 

I don't think QM predicts anything to be 100% certain

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but I haven't studied it for a bunch of years.

There's truly something not well understood going on in these experiments. I certainly do not understand it. Among the guesses about what might be happening, your guess seems plausable as I said.

I think we're where Edison was with his light bulb when he said that he knew of ten thousand things that don't work

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, I think that the curved space-time is a good visualization , noyhing more.It provides the common people and non-scientist with a visual 3D satisfaction and they all get the impression that curved space-time is something great. Not that GR is a total bullshit, i just think that it will never be applied in the micro-scale.

Thank for the link! i need time to understand it.


As for the mass of electron....

i know what local units means. i know that we will always measure the electrob mass in local units. But to an observer in different frame it mass may seems bigger. This would means that this frame is more 'absolute'. if we managed to find out one "absolute units system" we can always find out the absolute velocity.

Consider the following imaginary experiment:

We had two electrons moving with opposite velocities wrt Earth - v and -v respectivelly. Warth is moving WRTabs. space with V. We had made so that the 1st electron is moving collineary with earth and it abs. velocity is V+v, and the other V-v; Then if we measure the mass of both electrons WRT Earth would it be the same?

 

The electron moving fastest WRT earth would be more massive. We see this all the time in electron accelerators.

In fact, in electron-positron collisions all of the elementary particles are observed to materialize in the collisions. The accelerated pair appear to be orders of magnitude more massive than they were before they were accelerated.

 

Xgen,
The following came up in a similar discusion regarding electron mass - rest mass and relativistic mass.

When an electron is accelerated it emits EM radiation . I am assuming the frequency is related to mass vibration. In other words as velocity increases (measuring energy) the mass of the electron is seen to diverge from the 1/2 mc^2 curve.

Now if the mass vibration rate increases would or could this not mistakenly observed as an increase in mass? It seems reasonable. Now this 'additional mass' cannot be considered equivalent to taking a spoonful of mass from the cup of mass and adding this to the rest mass, It is the rest mass of the electron that is stimulated into accelerated vibration states which would account for the decrease in the electron ability to process the acceleration field energy into increases in velocity. Thisids implied from from purely mechanical considerations. The effciency of processes of energy retrieval and application of the energy as increases in velocity degrade. The vibration rate is so rapid it overwhelms the electron 's ability to process the field energy efficiently. This implies that the vibration frequency is the limiting parameter, or a limiting parameter, for the SOL limit for mass and the skewed mass v velocity corve. As the energy exchange mechanism degrades the unused energy is simply stored as unprocessed energy, fat,

Most of the discussions around this matter assume some form of velocity limitation is imposed on the electron. This may be true if the electron velocity is used as a reference into the energy equation, which must necessarily include linear velocity and mass vibration rate increases. It is the vibration rate increases that are observed and considered as mass increases.

Well anmyway that's the theory. My question is, not whether the mass increases during acceleration, that is a given. The question is: is the vibration of mass increases consistent with your understanding of the mass increase effect. In other words if what you have been describing as mass increases consistent with the above description?
Geistkiesel

 

Why invent the vibrating electron; it is not needed to understand the mass increase with motion. I like to think that MASS IS ELECTROMAGNETIC CHANGE. Increasing motion increases the relative rate of change of the fields that are the electron's being.

I think it is not the vibration of the electrons that causes the mass increase; it doesn't work in the standard model or in the speculative alternatives that I know about.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Vern,
I did not invent the vibrating electron. I have absolutely no quarrel with the model or the statement that mass is electromagnetic. Certainly we agree that EM implies a vibration of fields. So if I slip and use the M word we both know what I am referring to. The change of the vibrations are measured as things we call mass.

I want to point directly to the assumption in your post here that "velocity" causes the relative rate of change of fields that are the electron's being.

We cannot argue that predictions based on a known value for velocity are consitent. What cannot be inferred is that velocity causes the relative rate of change of the fields. Velocity is an instantaneous measurement of the current state of that rate of change,

It is the velocity change that causes the rate of change of the fields constituting the electron. It is in acceleration that force of the driving field affects the fields constituting the electron. It is this acceleration by the external field that imposes a continuos force on an objetct that would otherwise be moving uniformly.

In total agreement that mass is electromagnet change we must carefully consider that the so-called rest mass m0 is a measured constant to a high degree of accuracy. Tha M0 is "at rest" and there is no EM radiation from M0. From an assumption that velocity increases the realtive rate of change we must conclude that what we consider a rate of change of the fields that is m0 suggests an unobserved component of velocity. M0 is here because of the rate of change of he fields that is the being of the electron. The electrons 'being' means logically that there is a continuous relative rate of change of the electron field with an unobserved velocity change component in electrons observed at rest:a confined field oscillator.

I do not intend to kick aimlessly at dead horses but if the rate of change of the fields occurs only in the case of "linear" velocity, then an electron at rest would not manifest any rate of change of field, which implies the rest mass m0 = 0, which we find not to be the case. This implies either that the theory is wrong regarding velocity or that the velocity component giving rise to the rate of change of the field that is the electron 's being is other than the lmeasured inear velocity observed in accleration experiments. If this is so then the increase in vibration rate of the electron field is due to velocity changes An electron at rest m0 must is in a state of constant rate of change characterized as an internal 'resonant state of coherence'. The time varying rates of change are organized to prevent spontaneous radiation. The electron "mass" structure is complex in a vibratry mode. One cannot draw a large number of sine waves all crowded together and assert this is sufficient to define the field motion that is the being of the electron.

I am not inserting any opinions into the discussion as yet. I wil eagerly wait your reply on this.

I am emphacizing the points that

• 1. velocity is not the moving force giving rize to measured mass or changes in the rate of change of the field that is the being of he electron and
• 2. at elevated linear velocities the ability of the electron to absorb rates of change of the field [vibration] diminishes with ever increasing linear velocity.

At some point the heretofor orderly and distinct processes of rate of field change become overwhelmed. There is a minimum of two of these distinct process of ssignificance here, one necessarily preceding the other

• 1. the systematic ability to process energy exchanged with an external field and
• 2. the application of exchanged energy to specific impulses providing linear velocity increases.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Geistkiesel

 

Thinking in terms of the SOUND field theories, the mass of an electron is comprised in total of its v=c vibration pattern. (A SOUND field theory is one that does not break down when examined, no matter to what depth.)

Think of a gridwork that defines a RF. When observer and electron are in the same RF the electron's pattern cuts through the grid at a certain rate. Steady movement of the electron relative to the gridwork cuts through a greater amount of gridwork ticks. Like moving a wire through a magnetic gridwork.

That's one way of looking at it; not sure if it will hold under scrutiny

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OL let me try again. E = mc^2 and m then can be thought of as m = 2E/c^2 , so far so good? Is this energy state representing the upper limit to the amount of energy we may potentially assign to the electron mass under any conditions?
If so then how do we calculate the rest mass of an electron in term of its v = c vibration pattern? As a fraction say of the theoretical maximum?

I really thought that the effort to relate the causal chain of acceleration and vibration patter to exlainm the devation from the 1/2 mv^2 curve at elevated velocities was a separate issue. Again I ave no quarrel with the v term being a measure of any number of limits, but I cannot see how velocity wrt lab frame alone can be considered as a force term, nor can I understand why the acceleration force during increases in velociy can have no electron mass energy effect? I am not arguing here I am merely trying to see it exactly as you do.

Put another way, are you suggesting that the forces applied during accleration of a particle are outside the "energy loop" of the electron?

I am not sure I get the picture of your gridwork frame scenario. What does "the electron's pattern cuts through the grid" mean?

geistkiesel

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Waooh!

 

Well, I am thniking about much simpler explanation. Mass is related to electron wave-length. Electron wave-frequency is 1/T, where T is the oscillation period, wave lenght is proportional to T. However because of time dilation:

T' = T / sqrt ( 1 - v^2/c^2)

increases and thus mass should increases too.

OK, lets leave the mass aside, I tender to agree that it is not good for measuring parameter. Lets work for example with the period T, or more conveniently with the particles life-times.

I remember in my 3rd grade university experimental atomic physics practikum I was measuring muon life-times, it had turned out that they are 3-4 times higher then the muon life time because muons are emitted at high velocities and for them time is running slower. The muon life-times can be measured with high precision and they had no vibrations.

I will preformulate my imaginary experiment in the following way:

Two beams from muons are produced simultanneously from a muon source. They are with opposite directions. Both beams life times are estimated from two detectors. If we rotate the apparatus until first muon beam is collinear with Earth velocity V, and muon velocities are v0 + V, and the other beam is opposite to Earth velocity and muon velocities are v0 - V, is there going to have differences in the measured muon life times ?

Be carefull what you will answer because I can make the experiment!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Buy the way why:

E = mc^2 and m then can be thought of as m = 2E/c^2

isn't it m = E/c^2? Where you had taken 1/2 from?

 

Please multily by 1/2 and the tresspassing '2' will be gone.
My error.
Thanx Xgen
Geistkiesel

 

Goodness Gracious Great Balls Of Fire! When Geistkiesel was speaking of big bang and Guth inflation, it hit me! If Lorentz contraction is a real physical effect then at the first moment mass/energy was extremely contracted. As time went by and mass/energy slowed, it decontracted ( is that a real word? ) from pretty much zero length toward more normal, rest, length. There is a huge proportional factor between nearly zero and any greater length. Perhaps Lorentz decontraction ( I am really enjoying my new word; I'm easily amused ) is the mechanism for the inscrutable Guth inflation. Stranger things have been believed to be true.