[General] Position

[David Mathes]

John
In general, as a result of many decades of troubleshooting other peoples designs and theories, I'm unrestrained in my thinking approaches except by nature itself. So I'm willing to examine a problem from many viewpoints and using many tools.
After all, if all one has is a hammer, everything begins to look like a high collision energy experiment.
I'll use red to make lite comments. 
David
 
      From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
 To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Cc: Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org>; Manohar . <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com>; Kyran Williamson <kyran_williamson at hotmail.com>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; Alexander Afriat <afriat at gmail.com>; Michael Wright <mpbw1879 at yahoo.co.uk> 
 Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:12 PM
 Subject: RE: [General] Position
   
David,

Wonderful!

I'm delighted that you pick this up and help bring the debate to proper level.

You are absolutely right. Especially in view of gauge theories no-one has yet been able to "fix" the issue of charge. This is related to the problem of covariance of solutions and of  the "desert" to which the quantum field theory community refers. I was at a recent conference with Roger Penrose, and Basil Hiley and Chris Isham (amongst many other notables).  The closing talk - given by Deser - gave an overview of attempts to tackle this - showing that all had been been - so far - in vain. The main dig was at Isham, with Deser claiming that he had personally knocked down all his attempts. My impression is that the two are clearly fast friends and this was an ongoing conversation.

I will copy this to some of the above, but in the background or as a forward, as some of these guys get quite enough spam as it is.

My own view is that part of the problem lies in that "gauge theories" - magnificent as they are and complicated as they can get have a fatal flaw not understood by many - the idea that there should exist a full gauge freedom. This blows the minds of even the best as they try to puzzle through it.

Let me go through some of the below in turn with reference to experiment where I know anything about it. I may try to more after I follow up some of the links with which I am unfamiliar.  I'll go in blue.
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 6:36 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Kyran Williamson; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Position

John
Especially in view of gauge theory, I'm not sure how to "fix" the issue of charge.
So I've been muddling around ideas regarding charge:
1. No other charged particle is permitted within the electron. This statement seems obvious. Proving this may prove quite challenging. For some, this suggests no other mass. For others, this suggests no other quarks, and in doing so we are back to the issue of the negative vacuum within electron space.

No solution here. The leptons in general and the electron in particular appear "structureless" in high energy collision experiments. There is no simpler charged object within them - at leastup to the level of current experimental capability.If such a thing was discovered, it wouldanyway just shift the charge puzzle to a deeper level.

If there is no charged object within the leptons, then one is being directed to a spacetime solution. if all one has is a hammer, everything begins to look like a high collision energy experiment.
2. In any model circulating photon or quanta, charge is the result of transverse fields and may be an indirect result.First note that all models need to continuously conserve momentum.

At least ... it would be good if the constituent was also local, continuous and properly relativistic as well.

Proper relativistic? IMHO I agree GRT is a requirement, but local conditions may permit a lower impedance and therefore, a higher value of c.Would you clarify what proper relativistic is, please?
 a) Photon-in-the electron model requires containment, curvature and closed path. All models should be able to be modeled with a vector field even in 4D. 5D is a bit more difficult with essentially a 5x5 matrix.

Agreed whole-heartedledly. Confinement and its mechanism are the key here. I have been puzzling for a long time about the mechanism for confinement. As Martin noted, we were lucky enough to work with Casimir himself in the early days - looking for a possibility of using the Casimir force for electron confinement for our electron as a localised photon model. Our conclusion was that a spherical (bubble) cavity did not work, but that a toroidal cavity might. My present view, however, is that the Casimir force is, if it exists separately from the van der Waals force at all (which I think is not yet proven experimentally), is not sufficient to the task in hand. 
Van der Waals forces are usually F = a r^(n), typically where n is a positive integer only. In physical chemistry the value of n varies from 1 to 10. 
In general, one should explore whether n may be a negative number or even a fractional positive number. Furthermore, a general equation at the fractal level may simply to the van der Waals force equation with the proper simplifications. 
In order to get down the level of an electron, smaller antennas might be needed both to stimulate  and to sense activity - or lack of it - at least at the electron level and preferably below that. I'm thinking of fractal antennas (those antennas in cell phones) that have multiple points creating conditioned EM waves and interesting interference patterns. 
Anything confining the photon needs to be more potent than this. I now have such a force, as outlined in the paper presented at FFP14 which I circulated earlier - based on the scalar mass-energy termI introduce in the new theory of electromagnetism. I do not think that this is the whole story yet, but hope to develop thatthis year in and for the conference. Bottom line is - confinement is the key to charge and the understanding of charge needs the understanding of photon confinement.

We really need to vet the photon and electron as to what is impossible and focus on the improbable. The photon may be "charged" but only within the photon sphere. That is, there may be a charge-balanced photon. This idea may be presented in a future paper and does have a parametric equation set associated. However, the idea is only in it's infancy still. 
b) Quanta-in-the-electron model suggests a transformation of photon-to-quanta,

This is manifestly true from experiment. Photons transform to particles and vice-versa. The key here, and the argument in the WvdM model a couple of decades ago, is that the photon transverse field becomes configured topologically so that it becomes radial. This is, for us, the origin of charge.In doing this, the configuration becomes, necessarily, double-looped. This is, for us, the origin of the creation of fermions from bosons.

I agree with your assessment.
When the word quanta is used, I'm speaking to a moving energy density that is not in the Standard Model nor is it planned to be. Instead, the quanta is a sub elementary particle that is, in part, a building block for the next level up of elementary particles, and also interacts with spacetime. Whether this quanta behaves with QED precision may be beyond our skill sets and instruments except perhaps at BEC temperatures. Topological insulators and in general, topological-induced characteristics are being reviewed for a BEC type experiment.

and in doing so, the quanta may be charged or not. 

No. To be covariant it must absolutely NOT be charged. Charge must arise from the uncharged - as in experiment. This is the key problem unresolved in Richards model, Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanics (he was aware of this and tried later to fix it) and in all the present QFT's within the standard model (as far as I am aware).

For better or worse, Popper falsification is in my tool box. I'm not married to it; it's just a tool. So is a multidimensional Monte Carlo approach. Even so, my view is that any new theory must be linked back to the experimental evidence on which old theories were based, and that under specific conditions, to well known c, G, h theories although I must admit, Planck's units are not closed and therefore, very disturbing.
>From a rigorous review, one must consider possibilities no matter how palatable. To that end one has to consider the bosons in at least three ways.1)  if all bosons are already in charge balance, 2) the charge in the bosons are shielded, or 3) the charge is somehow benign or neutralized. 

To say charge must arise from the uncharged is a rather easy path. While the idea that gauge bosons are the source particles for leptons and quarks, one also needs to consider a sub elementary zoo of building blocks for any elementary particle. 

c) Nested model combines a and b to create a 3 level nest quanta/photon/electron model. Assumes the quanta has not structure internally.

In my view as at present - again no. The quantum must, and should, have an internal structure. This is another fun puzzle. My answer to this is to base the internal structure of the photon on the underlying relativistic nature of 4-spacetime. This is the theme of the paper I am considering dropping from the conference in favour of one answering Chip's problem of causality in the transactional interpretation of exchange events. I may re-consider this.

At the level of the quanta and perhaps even the photon, not only is 4-spacetime required but perhaps a 5-spacetime where energy density matters. I consider mass to be nothing more than a special condition of energy density. After all, the equation was originally written as m = E/c^2. Energy density also makes life easier for wave-particle duality. Mass is nice if you have 1, 2 or 3 particles. After that, IMHO, it's pretty much thermodynamics and fluid dynamics to really get at what is going on. 
d) N-nested layer theory where the 4th level of nesting is the structure within the quanta...one could go further and perhaps eventually bump into strings at some point but the lack of experimental tools to probe at this level, and the minimal evidence of the quanta, puts N-nested theory of elementary particles in the highly speculative category

My personal view at present is that string theory has a lot of very nice maths, but is manifestly (and often by design) completely unrelated to and untested by any present experiment. Hence its survival as a candidate theory so far.

String theory brings some insights and tools but is hopelessly devoid of real experiments, and therefore, is more mathematics. ( I wonder what Feynman or Landau would think of String Theory....)
e) SWAG - the spindle contains another sub-elementary particle - perhaps the magnetic monopole??? Fantasy that may be a possibility but is a bit more complex than proposed theories.

The electron monopole model implies - by duality - a magnetic monopole model. As argued in our 1997 paper the reason for its non-existence is that the electric monopole is of the same nature - but at a far lower energy. This is related, for me, to the underlying nature of the weak force. It is just the dual of the EM force.

The magnetic monopole has one other interpretation. That is where there is a kink or tight twist in magnetic lines as if from a far field view there was a source. This virtual view gets into geometry, topology and plasma dynamics.  Shocks and discontinuities seem to be an everyday occurrence for high energy physics and astrophysicists among others. 
Whether the monopole exists as a real or virtual particle is up to the reader.

3. The wake of the quanta or photon which emits a continuously expanding field. Think of the wake of a boat...not only is there a primary wake but secondary and beyond wakes. At the speed of light in vacuo, the wake is almost transverse to the quanta/photon. (ref: Froning and others) We have already seen other complex wake signatures

This is beyond me. Can't wait to look it up. Do you have some more detailed references?

4. Conditioning of the photon beyond just containment and curvature - Suggestions vary...SU(n), ribbon like photon, photon interacting with path, CPT violating photon, phat photon, football of frequencies of quanta for photon, 

I think it is wrong to put complex structure in a-priori. Such things as SU(n) should flow out of a model, not be put into it.

Since SU(n) is already part of other EM-based research projects, it's rather easy for me to back into a model with it. Design engineering and reverse engineering seem to be compatible even when a physicist is involved.  
6. Modification of SRT/GRT - Probably won't work given the 100 or so theories that have attempted to assault GRT as premier. So far, the best that can be done is to linearize GRT using Hoyle-Narkilar (see  Lance Williams, Fearn, Miloni,etc)

I think SRT and GRT are both very nearly correct. Any proper theory must, at least, reduce to these in proper limits. SRT, for me, is absolutely so. GRT is a quite simple theory at present. Here there is more room for manoeuvre and this could be fun. I think the first step may be to replace the scalar curvature in GRT at present with a pseudoscalar curvature. This is, in itself, quite a big job. Any GRT experts in the group who would like to give it a go?
7. TOEs - Weyl, (Williams)Heim, extended Heim, E8, Quantum Gravity (cGh), loop quantum gravity...TOE is waiting on the photon and electron folks to figure out the right direction to take the next steps.

Too true. One needs a proper theory of the photon and electron at least. Lets get on with it!

8. FTL approaches where GRT is preserved as a subset...may require negative vacuum, energy density conditioning or other "new and improved" approaches

I think FTL is ok, provided it preserves the proper (in the relativistic sense) nature of the underlying absolute relativity.

Agree.
Finally, an issue that impedes further progress may be inertial frames and frames of reference. Millis has for almost two decades been examining the issue. Here is a recent presentation (2014) on inertial frames.http://aspw.jpl.nasa.gov/files/ASPW2014%20PRESENTATIONS/WEDNESDAY/Breakthrough%20Prop/Millis.pdf

See also 2013http://www.globalsciencecollaboration.org/public/site/PDFS/time%20distance/Millis%20M.%20Warp%20Drives%20%26%20Wormholes.pdf

Millis (2011) summarizes the Davis/Millis tome on "Frontiers in Propulsion Science" (2009). Perhaps we need to collectively develop a vetting process specifically for the electron model similar to what Millis has done in Figure 1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1063

Cannot wait to have a look at these. Next job!

David

Regards to all. 

John W.


Best Regards,
David

From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Manohar . <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com>; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; Kyran Williamson <kyran_williamson at hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Position

#yiv0245304627 #yiv0245304627 -- p {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv0245304627 #yiv0245304627 BODY {direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;}#yiv0245304627 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv0245304627 BODY {}#yiv0245304627 BODY {}#yiv0245304627 BODY {}#yiv0245304627 BODY {}#yiv0245304627 BODY {}#yiv0245304627 BODY {}#yiv0245304627 BODY {}#yiv0245304627 BODY {}#yiv0245304627 BODY {}#yiv0245304627 BODY {}#yiv0245304627 BODY {}#yiv0245304627 BODY {}#yiv0245304627 BODY {}Hiya Richard and everyone,

I'm afraid the professor may have a point. This is related to what I was saying in an earlier email about the nature of charge and the relationship to gauge and to mass. Do you remember what she asked exactly?

To have a "charge" you need to go to a Coulomb-type gauge, related to the charge in that specific frame. This charge has a (radial) field associated with it in this frame which, itself, has an energy density (and since it is pinned to that frame a rest-mass density). You are positing an oscillation backwards and forwards at lightspeed (or greater) of this charge. This, neccessarily, takes one past infinite gamma. If one then wishes to keep special relativity, this is not physically possible. To be fair, as I said before, this problem is also there in the Dirac model.

This has a big problem with all Yang-Mills type theories (pretty much all of QFT then) and is a well-known problem in HEP and field theory circles. This problem has remained intractable for more than half a century since no one had managed (anyone know any different?), until my 2014 paper, to write down a covariant wavefunction for the photon, with which to construct an everywhere lightspeed solution without this problem.

At a simpler level one needs a model, such as the old WvdM model, where the photon remains rest-massles and chargeless - and charge the arises from the re-configuration of the field inside a double-loop topology. The ac photon field is then "rectified" in Andrews parlance, to be outward or inwards directed by virtue of the confinement mechanism (postulated in that paper- ascribed to the new "pivot" term in my new theory). There is no internal charge. Charge emerges as a consequence of the kind of confinement.

Don't worry too much ... these are known problems and I (think I) know how to fix them.

Regards, John W.


From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 4:47 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Position

Chandra, Andrew and others,    My presentation at APS in Baltimore on Tuesday went well in that in 10 minutes I presented the material as planned. The session had about 10 attendees, and was moderated by a professor of theoretical high energy physics from SLAC (This was very good). My powerpoint for the session is attached below.The moderator asked a question indicating that she had misunderstood (perhaps because of the way I expressed it) a main idea in my electron model. She thought that because I proposed that the electron is a circulating charged photon, that this implies that gamma for the electron model is infinite, making the model absurd. But in the model, while the circulating charged photon’s velocity is c along its helical path, it is the charged photon's longitudinal component velocity v that corresponds to v of the electron. The experimentally measured velocity v of the electron is always less than c, so gamma in the model is normal and not infinite. I didn’t have time to clarify this to her after my talk so I will try to do so by email. I hope no one in this group has the professor’s misunderstanding of my model on this point.      Richard
   

On Apr 16, 2015, at 10:54 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
Andrew,Thanks for your questions.
1  As far as I know, a light beam of normal (uncharged, spin 1 hbar) photons is not bent in a strong electric or magnetic field. The proposed circulating charged photon (spin 1/2 hbar and charge -e for an electron) that models an electron would of course bend in both an electric field and a magnetic field (unless the electric and magnetic forces cancelled each other). 
2. As far as I know, mass is always associated with a charged particle. In the case of a circulating charged photon, its mass is the energy that the circulating charged photon has when its longitudinal velocity (called the electron’s velocity) is at or near zero, i.e. m=Erest/c^2= 0.511 Mev/c^2 .
3. The circulating charged photon model of a relativistic electron does not incorporate a specific model of the charged photon, so different charged photon models could have different charge distributions. I doubt that the transluminal energy quantum associated with a photon or an electron in my models of the photon and the electron is point-like since the transluminal energy quantum for a photon or an electron can pass through a double-slit like an extended wave. The charged photon’s electric charge is associated with the helical movement of the charged photon at light-speed along its helical trajectory, while an uncharged spin 1 hbar photon travels linearly at light-speed, unless either the electron or photon is being diffracted by a slit or double slit for example in which case their motions are not yet defined. In my transluminal energy quantum model of the uncharged spin 1 hbar photon, the photon is itself composed of a helically circulating transluminal energy quantum, which is uncharged. In the circulating-charged-photon model of a relativistic electron,  the circulating charged photon must have spin-1/2 hbar at least at relativistic velocities because the electron has spin 1/2 hbar at relativistic velocities, as well as at lower velocities .The energy quantum appears point like (or very small) when a photon or electron is detected, in which case we say that we detected a photon or an electron, when what we actually detected is the photon's or electron’s transluminal energy quantum. The variability of the position and momentum of the helically-moving transluminal energy quantum in the photon model exactly matches the minimum requirement of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: delta x times delta p = hbar/2 (as shown in my "transluminal energy quantum models of the photon and the electron” article.) Perhaps it is the variable motion of the energy quantum generating a particle that requires the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that applies to that particle.
      Richard

On Apr 16, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
Richard,

I have begun to incorporate the various positions; but, I have a few questions on your model:
   
   - Have you ever found any evidence of a light beam bending in a strong electric or magnetic field? (I have speculated on every photon as being both fermionic and well as bosonic, so there could be a basis for the spin 1/2 component.)   

   - Do you have any evidence for a charge not having mass?
   - How is the charge spatially distributed within the photon?
Andrew
__________________________________-

Chandra, Andrew and others,   Here’s my current position paper on my charged photon model of the electron, and the energy quantum, with an attached Word file of the same:Richard Gauthier’s position on photon models of the electron, and the transluminal energy quantum 
Two types of non-pointlike electron models For those who have not accepted the ideal that the electron is pointlike with intrinsic spin (as accepted in the standard model), two distinct loop models with variations have been proposed. The first is a single-loop model where the electron’s charge or its mass or momentum or a photon or photon-like object moves circularly at light-speed around a loop of circumference one Compton wavelength h/mc and radius R1= hbar/mc. The second is a double-loop model that has the charge or mass or momentum or a photon or photon-like object moving at light-speed around a double loop whose total length is also one Compton wavelength but whose radius is R2=hbar/2mc .  Several models of the photon have been combined with these basic or generic single or double-loop models to produce more elaborate models of the electron. 
One main advantage of the single-loop model is that the calculated magnitude of the magnetic moment due to a circulating light-speed electron charge is the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m (the experimental value of the electron’s magnetic moment is slightly more than this.) But the calculated spin (z-component) of this model from the circulating momentum mc of the photon of Compton wavelength h/mc is Sz=R1 x p = (hbar/mc) x mc = hbar which is twice the spin of the electron. The experimental value of the spin ½ hbar of the electron has then to be found from some further hypothesis about the single-loop electron model. 
One main advantage of the double-loop model is that the calculated spin (z-component) is Sz=R2 x p = (hbar/2mc) x mc = hbar/2 which is the correct electron spin (z-component). But the magnitude of the magnetic moment of this model is found to be ½ Bohr magneton. The experimental value of the electron’s magnetic moment (slightly more than 1 Bohr magneton) has then to be calculated or approximated from some further hypothesis about the double-loop model. The double-loop model also contains the zitterbewegung frequency fzitt=(2mc^2)/h of the electron found from the Dirac equation. 
Both the single-loop and double-loop models have generally been described for a resting (v=0) electron. Some models have included motion v>0 of the electron to try to account for the experimental value of the de Broglie wavelength Ldb=h/(gamma m v) of a moving electron, and the experimental value of the very small (around or less than 10^-18m) of relativistic electrons found in high energy electron scattering experiments. 
Gauthier’s charged photon model of the electron My approach has been to model the electron relativistically as a helically circulating double-looping photon. The photon carries the electron’s charge and has spin ½ hbar, the same as that of an electron, rather than spin hbar of an uncharged photon. By equating the moving electron’s relativistic energy E=gamma mc^2 with the photon’s energy E=hf, the charged photon is found to have frequency f=(gamma mc^2)/h and a wavelength L= h/(gamma mc). While this frequency f was used by deBroglie to derive the electron’s deBroglie wavelength, the wavelength L=h/(gamma mc) of a hypothesized photon corresponding to a relativistic electron has never previously been reported or utilized to my knowledge, neither by de Broglie nor by others (including other electron modelers.) 
The charged photon in the above model has these three photon characteristics: 1) its energy E=hf, 2) its momentum  p=h/L, 3) its speed of light c=fL. In addition it has 4) the electron’s charge, 5) a light-speed helical motion and 6) a spin ½ hbar.  In addition the radius of the helix for a resting electron (where the helix becomes a circle) is hbar/2mc . When these first 3 characteristics and the resting electron radius are combined with the helical motion of characteristic 5, a unique helical trajectory (except for right or left turning) is found for the charged photon model of the electron. Some of its characteristics are: 
1)  Its radius for a resting electron is R2 = hbar/2mc2)  The radius of  the charged photon’s helical trajectory decreases with increasing electron speed as R= R2/(gamma^2)3)  The longitudinal component of the charged photon’s helical speed c is the speed v of the electron being modeled. The forward angle theta of the circulating helix is given by cos (theta) = v/c.4)  The electron’s momentum p=gamma mv is the longitudinal component of the circulating photon’s momentum P=gamma mc.5)  The pitch of the charged photon’s helical trajectory is maximum for v= c/sqrt(2) and gamma = sqrt(2), where theta = 45 degrees. The maximum helical pitch here is pi Ro, and decreases towards zero as v->0 and as v->c.6)  The longitudinal component of the charged photon’s wave vector K corresponding the circulating charged photon’s relativistic wavelength L=h/(gamma mc) generates the de Broglie wavelength of the electron h/(gamma mv)7)  The transverse component of the circulating photon’s momentum is ptrans=mc. At v=0, this transverse momentum when combined with the circulating photon’s helical radius hbar/2mc gives the electron’s spin Sz= + or – hbar/28)  Since the electron has spin ½ hbar at highly relativistic velocities, the spin of the circulating charged photon must also be ½ hbar, since in the charged photon model of the electron it is the charged photon’s spin at highly relativistic velocities that gives the electron model its spin ½ hbar at these velocities. The contribution of the helical radius R of the charged photon’s axis to the electron model’s spin Sz is R x mc = hbar/(2mc gamma^2) x mc = hbar/(2gamma^2) which is hbar/2 when v=0 but decreases towards zero at highly relativistic velocities. The charged photon’s spin ½ hbar remains constant at highly relativistic velocities and therefore gives the electron model its spin ½ hbar at these highly relativistic velocities. 
An objection to the charged photon model that has been repeatedly raised is that an electron has spin ½ hbar and is a fermion while a photon has spin 1 hbar and is a boson, so an electron cannot be a charged photon. But if a circulating photon carrying the electron’s charge has spin ½ hbar it is not a boson but a fermion. In other words, photons may be of two types: uncharged with spin 1 hbar  (boson) and charged with spin ½ hbar (fermion). 
Gauthier’s transluminal energy quantum model of the photon and a spin ½ photon model A spin ½ hbar photon model is needed that satisfies this requirement of the charged photon model of the electron. One such model is obtained by modifying Gauthier’s transluminal energy quantum model of the photon, which has spin 1 hbar and is described in another publication (“Transluminal energy quantum models of the photon and the electron”). Suffice it to say here that when the transluminal energy quantum photon model’s helical radius of Lambda/2pi is changed to Lambda/4pi, the photon’s spin is reduced from hbar to hbar/2 and the photon obtained becomes a candidate for the spin ½ hbar photon that is required for the charged photon model of the electron. 
The general concept of the transluminal energy quantum as a fundamental quantum particle is that electrons and photons as well as other fundamental particles may be composed of these energy quanta with different characteristics that produce gluons, quarks, neutrinos, muons and tau particles, W and Z particles and the Higgs boson, and possibly dark matter particles as well. A quark may be a circulating charged gluon in a similar way that an electron may be a circulating charged photon. This last paragraph is meant to be suggestive of the possible power of the concept of the transluminal energy quantum for structuring oscillating energy into various physical particles with their characteristics, but more theoretical as well as experimental research is needed here. 
April 8, 2015_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier 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>





_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atdmath777 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/dmath777%40yahoo.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/20150418/f5e02fe1/attachment-0001.htm>