[General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Fri Apr 3 09:48:06 PDT 2015

John,
   I very much appreciate your welcoming and open approach to ideas that you may not agree with. You were very kind to include me in a group e-mail discussion last year about your recent article on the electron. This inspired me to study your and Martin’s 1997 electron model in more detail, and to review Vivian’s article as well as take a deeper look at Hestenes’ and Rivas' models of the electron as a helically moving light-speed electric charge, which came from their Dirac equation analyses. Then, in combination with rediscovering Dirac’s Nobel lecture quote about the electron moving at the speed of light but only being observable moving at less than the speed of light due to its small amplitude and high frequency motion, various ideas and results kind of synthesized and the relativistic charged photon model of the electron emerged. That would not have happened so soon (if at all) without my having had the opportunity to openly exchange views with you, Martin and Vivian and several of your other colleagues, which I am very grateful for. Chip’s work has also been very inspiring to me. I feel that we all may have found different pieces of, or at least clues to, the electron-photon puzzle.
     Richard

> On Apr 2, 2015, at 8:41 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> My dear Chip,
> 
> There is absolutely nothing to apologise about. I should apologise as well, if it comes to that, for singling that thing out (when there is much more in the general discussion we have all been having). It is only through discussion, and seeing what others make of an exposition, that one can find the flaws in ones own presentations. Provided the questioner is serious and thoughtful, and of good will, it is pretty much, for me, the most valuable thing there is!
> 
> So thank you for getting the wrong end of the stick there. This particular one (together with Richard going the same way) - has been very valuable to me. The fault lies, if any, in our poor explanation of just what we are talking about - a fault I will try to rectify in future work.
> 
> Regards, John.
> From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:26 PM
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
> 
> Hi John W and Martin
>  
> I would like to apologize for referring to your model form the 1997 paper as based on a “charge ribbon”.
> That was clearly an erroneous oversimplification.  Will change the wording in my discussions and papers to try to avoid misrepresenting.
>  
> Your work has been a tremendous inspiration and I do not want to misrepresent it in any way.
>  
> Warmest Regards
>  
> Chip
>  
>  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:51 AM
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>  
> Chip:
>  
> It is interesting, isn’t it? Here’s another one:
>  
> With a small correction factor Δ related to binding energy, we can say this:
>  
> <image001.gif>    = 1.60218  × 10-19 Coulombs                                    
>  
>  
>  
> ε0 = 8.854187817 x 10-12
>  
> 4π = 12.56637061
>  
> c3 = 26.94400241 x 1024
>  
> With no correction for binding energy we can calculate electron charge as:
>  
> √(ε0/4πc3) = √(8.854187817 × 10-12 / 338.5883200×1024)  =  √(2.6150304 × 10-38)  = 1.61710 × 10-19
>  
> This is within 1% of the measured value of 1.60218 × 10-19 Coulombs.
>  
>  
> Regards
> John D
>  
>  
> From: Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:56 PM
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>  
> Hi John D
>  
> Interesting stuff about Planck’s constant.
>  
> 2.42631 × 10-12 m is the physical wavelength of the confined photon in my electron model.
>  
> Chip
>  
>  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of John Duffield
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 3:43 AM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>  
> John:
>  
> The paper looks interesting. If you wish I’ll get back to you on it properly at a later date. Meanwhile take a look athttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9610066 <http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9610066> and at http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/19084/ <http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/19084/> by a medical doctor called Andrew Worsley. He talks about “harmonic quintessence”, and stuff like this:
>  
> Planck units are based on the properties of space. The Planck length is 1.616199×10−35 metres. It’s defined using the speed of light, Planck’s constant of action h, and the gravitational constant G. It can be written (using the reduced Planck’s constant) as ℓP=√(ћG/c³). We can replace √(ћG) with 4πn where n is a suitable value with appropriate dimensionality. The expression 4πn/√c³ still yields the Planck length. But if we now set n to the value 1 whilst retaining its dimensionality, then with a very small correction factor δ related to binding energy, the result is a different length. It is however familiar: 
>  
> <image002.gif>= 2.42631 × 10-12 metres               
>  
>  
> Regards
> John D
>  
>  
> From: Vivian Robinson <mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:49 AM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>  
> John,
>  
> You are in. I look forward to receiving your contributions to the structure of photons and electrons.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Vivian Robinson
>  
> On 01/04/2015, at 9:26 AM, "chandra" <chandra at phys.uconn.edu <mailto:chandra at phys.uconn.edu>> wrote:
>  
> Welcome, John M.!
> I am glad to see that you are “on board” finally!
> Please, feel free to read up the “archived” discussions and present your views using brief quotations to remind the readers the connection to the earlier discussions.
> Chandra.
>  
> Michael: Please, send out the instructions as to how to access the archived discussions.
>  <> 
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of John Macken
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:25 PM
> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Subject: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>  
> Hello,
>  
> I would like to join the Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Group.  I am John Macken and I presented a paper titled “Spacetime-based model of EM radiation” at the Nature of Light V conference in 2013.  I have also submitted an abstract to make another presentation at the 2015 conference.
>  
> I am very interested models of the internal structure of an electron and other particles.  I have a paper that will be published next month which deals with particles, fields and forces. A preprint is available at:
> http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf <http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf>    
>  
> I believe that I can make significant contributions to your discussion group.
>  
> Sincerely,
>  
>  
> John Macken
>  
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv at etpsemra.com.au <mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atjohnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atjohnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150403/ec95cbb4/attachment-0001.htm>