[General] Photon

Thu Jun 11 10:36:24 PDT 2015

Nick and John,
I'm wondering where the pivot point is precisely.
Could there be multiple points that are condition dependent?
In some models, spacetime appears to interact with the photon. Is this pivoting too.
David

      From: Nick Green <nick_green at blueyonder.co.uk>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] Photon

  One might say the photon path bends in the electric field of the pivot and, if energy sufficient, may close to form coherent matter and anti-matter. So how many spins or sine waves are needed to model this and what are their frequencies and phase relationhips?

 Best

 N.

 On 10/06/2015 09:20, John Williamson wrote:

  Hello David and everyone. 

 You are right that most of the models do not cite a mechanism for changing the nature of the photon to that of the electron. This is a huge problem. Photon go (fast!) in straight lines. Electrons just sit there going round and round in circles. They are very different!

 It is worrying about this and trying to find solutions to it, that have kept Martin and myself busy for the last couple of decades. We have made loads of models, and have introduced forces in several different ways.

 My new theory is one case that does have (self) confinement forces. The new scalar invariant mass density term, the pivot, introduces a new factor into the momentum density flow (the Poynting vector for pure field). The derivative of this is a radial force - a confinement force in other words. An element of the Poincare stresses then. In fact the force is such that one gets precisely a radial electric field for a re-circulating field and a double-loop (with half-integral spin). Absolutely beautiful!

 The picture is as follows. No pivot - momentum in straight lines - pure field photons.

 Bit of pivot, photon moves (a little) helically . no big deal.

 Lots of pivot ... same thing.

 Enough pivot plus initial counter-propagating photons. Possibility of vortex and anti-vortex. Charge-anticharge pair both with pivot of same order as magnetic field. Stable, charged, half-integral spin, recirculating self-confined system. An electron and a positron.

 Look carefully at the paper I circulated. It is in there. Not very well explained, obviously. I will do better next time with all this input!

 Cheers, John.
   From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 7:55 AM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Photon

    John 
  I like the simplicity of the photon in the electron circulating at c. However, no mechanism is cited for getting from photon to electron. The evidence is in the stars. Photons appear to travel a very long way without turning into electrons. Is this just spontaneous  photon conversion to electron, a whim of nature? 
  The difficulty with a c-only velocity in the electron is that it would seem that c-average velocity would meet the criteria as well. Now this implies there is may be a Lorentz contraction, and also the improbability - not impossibility -  of a transluminal photon/quanta within. Once we have eliminated everything else, whatever remains no matter how improbable, must be a truth,  perhaps even the truth.  
  The self-interaction aspect smells of acceleration somewhere in all this. And in a circulating photon one of the few requirements is to explain conservation of total angular momentum which seems to be the key criteria especially with a instant c-velocity only model. Could it be there is a missed interpretation of averaged c-velocity only model as a instant c-velocity model. Perhaps we need to define the total angular momentum within the electron more clearly and precisely. 
  IMHO we need to consider and examine every electron model to see if there is any acceleration by the photon.  
  Seriously, how does on make the leap from a plain photon to the photon curving and interacting with itself. Is there some DNA that tells a photon internally to become an electron? Is there something external acting as a catalyst? Is there a process which combines both in a  two step process? 
  Then there is the question of superposition for uncharge photons while charged photons as electrons can overlap under the right conditions and in multiple ways. Of course this begs the question of when does superposition fail. 
  David 

     From: John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:20 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] Photon

#yiv1162353591 BODY {direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;}#yiv1162353591 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv1162353591 BODY {}#yiv1162353591 BODY {}   Richard:   The 511keV photon confines itself. There isn’t anything else there. It’s like a  photon in a box of its own making, see Martin’s  light is heavy. Light is displacement current, and it displaces its own path into a closed path. But then we don’t call it a photon, we call it an electron. However we can still diffract it. It still has a wave  nature. But it isn’t moving linearly at c, it’s going round and round at c. Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave moving linearly at c. Electron  mass is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going round and round at c. That’s it. It’s that simple. Hence the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. That’s what  E=mc ² is all about, Einstein even talks about the electron on the same line as he talks about a body.  And I’m afraid the Higgs mechanism contradicts it.  When it’s an electron, the511keV photon has mass because it’s interacting with itself,  not with cosmic treacle.    Regards John D

     From: General[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
 Sent: 10 June 2015 02:39
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Photon      Hi John,       I think it may be a mistake to call an object a “confined photon” if you mean that a photon is “unconfined” and moving linearly with no rest mass until it becomes “confined” and then  the system of “confinement” +  photon has a rest mass and this rest mass is attributed purely to the “confinement  mechanism” and not to the to the “otherwise free” photon still moving at c while it is being confined.        Rather, the rest mass of an object, whether a circularly moving photon, a helically  moving photon or a linearly moving photon is the real quantitative measure of its “confinement", so that  “confinement” and “inertia” mean the same thing— both refer to the rest mass of the object.  Someone could claim that a photon moving in a straight line is also “confined” to  move in this straight line, but this linear confinement carries no rest mass with it and so you would say that this photon is not confined at all. Someone could also claim that a photon  moving by itself in a helical trajectory is no more confined than a photon moving in a straight line — but  their rest masses are different and you would I think say that the helically moving photon is more confined that the photon moving in a straight line. Anyone can argue about  what one mean by confinement and how one should measure it.        A particular photon moving in a helical trajectory at any longitudinal speed less than c (such as the proposed charged photon model of the electron moving at different relativistic  velocities) has a rest mass and this rest mass is exactly the same rest mass as when the  photon (as seen from a different moving reference frame) moves in a double-looped circle and  you call it an electron. So does the confinement of an object change when you pass by it at different speeds? That doesn’t seem logical. And the rest mass of the helically moving  photon is the same rest mass mo as the rest mass of the corresponding circularly moving photon, because the rest mass of this confined photon is relativistically invariant as you say. You might say that there is a “confining” force in the physical world. But someone might say that this  is just the Higgs field that gives rest mass to otherwise massless objects. So again, what is the difference between the rest mass and the degree of confinement of a particle, if any?           best regards, Richard         
  On May 31, 2015, at 5:42 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:      Dear all,

 I have the feeling that you are getting mixed up with  splitting things into other things as though this means something. Martin is right.  Light remains light. A photon goes from emitter to absorber --- boom. If light is in a box it remains light. It continues, in flight to be  rest-massless. It is the whole system that exhibits the PROPERTIES of a rest mass, by virtue of the confinement. 

 The rest-mass is DEFINED as the square root of the 4-momentum squared (in proper units). For any particle this is just what you get by  looking at it at rest. This is a Lorentz invariant quantity. For a particle some of this may be rest-mass mass, some confined field, some the  confinement mechanism itself (whatever that is). It all appears on the weighing scale.

 In QED this value, for the virtual photons responsible  for electromagnetic attraction or repulsion may be positive (repulsion) or negative  (attraction). Yes, negative mass! This does not mean there is an actual little lump of negative mass that has just come about. You need to  consider the whole process not keep trying to split it into bits like lego. The value is defined by the properties of the light AND the box. For  virtual particle exchange attraction one can also see it as field cancellation. That is the negative bit. It isn't magic. Just because you can  write down an equation for mass does not make it appear as a bit of mass with a label  "mass" on it!

 Indeed, as light slows in a crystal there is an energy  associated with the photon, but equally with the (partial) confinement of it by the  crystal. It makes no sense to ascribe this wholly to the one or the other. If the light circulates with total internal reflection you could weigh it  on a scale. If it was a short laser pulse the crystal would jump up and down as it went round and round - in principle you could measure this too.

 It is just confusing yourself to insist on things becoming  other things, with other properties. Analogies are nice, but not if they confuse  you. A zig-zagging photon, free to escape up or down, is confined slightly differently to a wholly confined one. This is due to the properties of  the confinement- not the properties of the photon. If its wholly confined - and smooth you will weigh the whole photon energy as rest  mass, even though the photon is not itself rest-massive.

 Regards, John W.      From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com]
 Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 1:06 AM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Photon    Richard, the photon itself, or light, never has a rest  mass, it is going at light speed, that is what light does.        The box plus photon does have a rest mass, equal to the  mass of the box plus the energy of the photon devided by c squared.   You have to be precise with these things!!!!   Just read light is heavy of you want to know hoe  reflections work,   Best, Martin

 Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone   
 Op 1 jun. 2015 om 01:56 heeft Richard Gauthier  <richgauthier at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:  
   John W, John D, and Martin and others,       I agree with John D here: ( "But check out photon effective mass. If  you slow down a photon to less than c, some of its  energy-momentum is exhibited as mass.  And there’s a sliding scale in between the two  extremes.” ) If a photon of energy E has an extended  straight trajectory, it has no rest mass. If a photon of energy  E is reflecting back and forth perpendicularly in a mirror-box between parallel mirrors, it  has a rest mass E/c^2. If a photon of energy E=mc^2=hf is circling in a closed circular loop or double-loop  (as in various models of an electron) it has rest mass m= E/c^2 = 0.511 MeV/c^2 . I think we all agree on  this.        Now suppose a photon is zig-zagging between  two parallel mirrors where at each reflection the angle  that the photon makes with a mirror's surface is Theta.  Then the photon has a longitudinal average velocity between the  parallel mirrors of v = c cos (Theta), or cos (Theta) = v/c .  Theta = 90 degrees corresponds to a photon reflecting  perpendicularly in a mirror-box where the photon's rest mass m is E/c^2, and v=0. Theta = 0 degrees  corresponds to a photon traveling in an extended straight  trajectory parallel to the two mirrors in  some direction, and in this case the photon's rest mass m is zero,  and v=c .  I found this morning that for any Theta between 0  and 90 degrees, a zig-zag reflecting photon of energy E=hf and angle Theta has a rest mass of M=  (E/c^2) sin (Theta)= E/(gamma c^2) since when cos(Theta)=v/c,  then sin (Theta) = 1/gamma. This relationship is the case for relativistic velocities also. So  for example for a zig-zagging photon of energy E=hf,  if Theta = 30 degrees, then v/c = cos(Theta)= 0.866,  sin(Theta) = 0.5  and gamma = 2 . The rest mass M of this  zig-zagging photon of energy  E=hf is then M = E/(gamma c^2) =  hf/(2 c^2) = 0.5 hf/c^2 .         This M=(E/c^2) sin(Theta) relationship for a  zig-zagging photon also applies to the helically circulating  (with helical angle Theta) charged photon  model of the relativistic electron, where the circulating  charged photon of energy E=hf=gamma m c^2  is always found with this method to have a rest mass of  M = (E/c^2)  sin (Theta) = (gamma m c^2)/(gamma c^2) = m = 0.511  Mev/c^2.       So John D’s sliding scale for the rest mass M of a zig-zagging photon  of energy E ,  speed c and longitudinal velocity v, is  M=(E/c^2) sin (Theta) = E/(gamma c^2). Can anyone verify this  sliding scale relation, or contradict it (with calculations)?            Richard           
  On May 31, 2015, at 2:01 AM, John  Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:      John W: A little feedback. IMHO it’s  important, so bear with me: If it has rest-mass it is not a  photon.  If you slow down a photon to an  effective speed of zero because you  trap it in a mirror-box,  all of its energy-momentum is exhibited  as mass.  Photon momentum is a  measure of resistance to change-in-motion  for a wave moving  linearly at c, whilst electron mass  is  a measure of resistance to  change-in-motion for a wave going round  and round at c. But check  out photon effective mass. If you  slow down a photon to less  than c, some of its energy-momentum  is exhibited as mass. And  there’s a sliding scale in between the  two extremes. So if the speed of a photon in free space were to  vary for some reason, its mass would vary. Of course this  doesn’t happen to photons. But there are  such things as neutrinos.   One must include the properties of  emitter and absorber as well - these are essential to the  quantisation I disagree with this. The emitter is an  electron, the absorber is an electron. IMHO the electron is 511keV  because of the quantum nature of light. Imagine kicking a  football. Kick it fast or kick it slow,  the length of your leg is  always the same. IMHO it’s the same  for photon amplitude, and  there’s only one wavelength that will do  to wrap up that amplitude  into the spin ½ spinor that we call an  electron.  Isolated electrons cannot emit.  True, but check out the Inverse  Compton.  The argument in the paper I have already  posted is precisely that electromagnetism remains continuous and  un-quantised.  But light is quantized, and we make  electrons out of it. And they’re always 511keV electrons.  electromagnetic energy, propagated  over a distance in space, must  come in "lumps" An E=hf photon can have any frequency you  like, and any energy you like. But it has a wave nature. Space  waves. It is a lump.    Photons are the bit that do not inter-act.  Yes they do. Photons interact with  photons in gamma-gamma pair  production. And an  electron is just a photon forever  interacting with itself. Displacing its own path into a closed path.    Coming back to another point you raise –  you suggest, Chip, that I should possibly try going to  root two of c  and then I’ll get my numbers to  fit.  Imagine you’re in your gedanken canoe  and a waves comes at you at the speed of light. You rise up. At  what speed?  Two reasons: firstly the zitterbewegung  fluid in the Dirac model is not fields but some stuff with peculiar  properties defined by the new theory: Spinors. These have the  peculiar property that you must  rotate through 720 degrees to  get back to where you started from.  That’s what you have to do to convert a  field variation into a standing field. Imagine a seismic wave  that displaces you 1m left then 1m right. Represent it as a sine-wave  paper strip, like below. Then turn that into a Mobius strip. You now  have an all-round standing  displacement of 1m.  <image001.jpg>   Coming back to a more advanced  theory: one has to explain why and how charges arise in a  pair-creation process. To do this one has  to understand field properly IMHO one has to understand potential and  displacement current, and how a field-variation is more  fundamental than the electron’s  electromagnetic field.  Are you charging the electric field  part or the magnetic field part, for example. One is the slope of your canoe, the  other is the rate of change of slope of your canoe.  For me, the charge comes about more  from, as Chip and John D are arguing, from a topological re-configuration  of the field such that it is everywhere radial in a double looped  configuration. The photon has field. The field is rectified by  the twist and the turn. The confinement  leads then to a confined  object appearing to be (and  actually being) charged. Well said that man. Why isn’t this common  knowledge?   The turn itself – essential to the  re-configuration of the field, is engendered in my model not by a  charge, but by  displacement current. It does what it  says on the can.  Now, coming back to numbers, let  us say that I did want Martin and my old model to get the charge  exactly right (for example).  Try √(ε0/4πc³). Regards JohnD        From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
 Sent: 30 May 2015 16:31
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion
 Cc: Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth;  Ariane Mandray; Kyran Williamson
 Subject: Re: [General] Photon         Good morning everyone,

 Firstly - yes indeed I do  not think I have it precisely  right in the paper I have  circulated yet. I am not in the habit  of being completely right first-time every time!  I'm actually quite pleased about that -  otherwise where would be  the fun? I have certainly not explained  myself well enough yet.  Martin has, already, done a better job  than me, on the nature of  the photon, in his comment yesterday.  Secondly, though, I do not agree with  Chip that it ok to put photons on top of one another, or  with Richard that the solution is to  think about charged  photons.

 The problem is description -  and language is such an imprecise tool  - words carry far too much  weight yet you need to use them. More, if  one is going to properly  describe nature in a theory – you  need the actual theory  – not just vague notions that address a  single problem. For me the phrase “charged photon”, for  example, is an oxymoron. The photon is for me, by its nature an  uncharged and rest-massless thing. If it  has charge it has rest-mass.  If it has rest-mass it is not a  photon. This is my problem  though: I do not own the word “photon”.

 Having a word for "photon"  means that one is tempted to think that it is a thing. I say it and  mean something – most of you hear something else (except Martin – he  and I are pretty close on this and I  agree with his description).  For most, the concept separates it  from the complete process of charge-charge exchange of a  quantum of energy - which is actually what is going on, and what  is actually observed. So, when I say the photon is self-quantised  I am not talking about a little  self-contained quantized EM  bullet being emitted independent of  its emitter or absorber. One  must include the properties of emitter and  absorber as well - these  are essential to the quantisation  and it is from these that one calculates the (mere) value of the charge  and Plank's constant. It is, as I argue, the properties of  the emission-absorption process which  give the quantisation.  It is the initial configuration  of the fields, engendered in  the emitter that must modulate the  carrier to a pure zero-rest mass configuration in order to  propagate. The initial fields in the emitter must fulfil strict  criteria – corresponding exactly to  those observed physically.  They may only transform with the same  factor as does the frequency  (this is just normal relativity –  not an extra condition). Fields transform, however, only  perpendicular to the boost, whereas the  4-vector transforms  only parallel to it. Again, just the  standard relativity of  fields and vectors. If the fields are  right, then they can be transported by a hypercomplex exponential  which normally contains rest-mass components and cannot itself  propagate. It remains at rest at the  site of the emitter  (though it may recoil a bit). I think the  reason I am getting the  wrong value for the constant of  Plank is nothing to do with the velocities I’m using but  comes about because I am assuming at  first that the usual emitter  is an electron – when in fact it is usually  an atom. Isolated  electrons cannot emit. I need now to  brush up on atomic physics, Next job. Next paper –  hopefully.

 No matter. The argument in  the paper I have already posted is  precisely that electromagnetism  remains continuous and un-quantised.  The point is that - for a  long distance exchange of electromagnetic  energy ONLY states which  have certain properties may propagate.  Chief amongst those properties (for the wave-function  proposed) is that constrained by  this form, electromagnetic  energy, propagated over a  distance in space, must come in "lumps". The wave-function  proposed supports ONLY a change in  frequency. That is the  wave-function I propose works if, and  only if, the energy  transferred is proportional to the  frequency. This is what is new about it. It only "works" if the  light comes in lumps. It only propagates strongly constrained  fields. This is not to say that  electromagnetism itself is  quantised - it is not. It remains free  to chirp and stretch and polarise freely as Martin  explains. It describes only non-interacting  waves NIW, as Chandra  argues. Most of the physics is still just  classical electromagnetism.  Chandra is mostly right (in my view).  Read his papers! The  inter-action is not between photons, it is  between charges. Photons are the bit that do not  inter-act. This is what NIW means. The new theory allows (actually it  requires) the description of continuous waves, locally. They  just do not propagate over long distances  (even a few wavelengths!)  because that is excluded at the level of  the first turn (the first  differential).  It is the whole process that exhibits  the quantisation – just as Martin says. It is just that if  light wants to go anywhere it,  necessarily, starts looking  a lot like a photon. Richard is  right to separate out the different levels of quantisation  as well. It is not one thing, but the separation of the continuous  into integer units of various  dimension. There is not  one “quantisation” in nature, but  many. The new theory pertains only the process usually called  photon exchange. The quantisation I  am talking about here is  the quantisation of EM into  "photons".

 Now, coming onto that  process and that argument, you say, Chip,  that it should be perfectly  possible to put two photons  precisely on top of one another so that they add linearly.  1+1=2. Yes – but no. Such an object is and has to be an object with  a different frequency. That is the  point. This comes to the  heart of the matter and the heart of the  reason I argue the whole  process should come in lumps defined by the  frequency alone.  If it were so that one could put  two photons on top of one another, one would observe the two  "photons" to be emitted at precisely the  same time in the same  emission event, and absorbed at  precisely the same time and  place in the absorption event. That is  one would propagate two red (say) photons and get a blue's  worth of energy in the exchange event  now involving two photons.  Now you may want this to be so, it may  feel like a nice friendly  thing photons (which are after all  bosons) should be able to do.  Only problem is that such a notion is in  contradiction with what is  observed experimentally. One could put  a diffraction grating between source and detector, for example,  such that the photons appeared in different places  according to their frequency.  Place the detector at the "red" position. No signal. No  di-photon events with the  characteristics of red  photons. Where are they? Try going to the  blue position. There they  are! Appearing as one lump of energy one at  a time. They do have the  doubled energy one would expect from  1+1= 2 – but they do not – experimentally- have the same wavelength, or  frequency. You get only blue ones. This is what you observe and  what has been observed all along in experiment since the  photo-electric effect. In your thinking  you must be rigorous  enough to bear this in mind. What is  observed in experiment is what your theory must parallel.  Otherwise it is just fantasy  (fantasy is good!). To be  proper physics, though, it  must not just describe what does happen. It must also say why what  is observed NOT to happen does not happen.  Too many of the current batch  of theories do describe a wee bit of nature, but also predict vast  slews of phenomena that just don’t  happen. Not good! This may  have become fashionable in the last  half-century or so. It is  certainly convenient for some theories  as it means they cannot easily be toppled by pesky  experiment which would otherwise wipe  most of them out. People  have become used to theory predicting  lots of things that do not  happen. This is not good enough for  proper progress. These theories cannot be used for  engineering applications. One would  predict lots of things to  work that would not. We need precision  and rigour. This is why I  appreciate criticism so much. Thanks  Chip! It helps us all get to  the point. The ultimate "reason" for the  quantisation of the compete solution I  have made up in the paper  is exactly the two conditions that energies  should add AND that fields  should add LINEARLY.  This is what the new  wave-functions do. It feels that one should have freedom  of thought (and one does!), but for thinking to parallel  the physical world it must be  constrained, not by one  thinks about nature, but by what one  observes it to do. It must fit experiment. All of it. In  other words to parallel nature it must  fit the whole of your  physical understanding - all at once.  This is very strongly  constrained thinking. Worse- not all  of us know all of experiment all at once (especially me!). Coming back to another point you raise –  you suggest, Chip, that I should possibly try going to  root two of c  and then I’ll get my numbers to  fit. Now, if I just wanted to get the numbers to fit this might be  an option. I cannot allow myself to do this though. Why? Because  light travels at c. Experimentally.  This is not a floppy  condition. It is not a parameter you  can just vary with no consequence elsewhere. It is fun to  think about it – but in doing so one moves away from the whole  constraint of the whole of physics I  talked about above. One  goes out in a soft, friendly,  mushy area of thinking where all things are possible. One goes out in  the world of untamed imagination. Great! There is plenty of  room for that. I love fiction!  Physics is now so  complicated, however, that such thinking  will rapidly move away from  that which is observed in very many  areas. One is in a world without proper signposts or fixed points.  This is a very similar world to the world of string, or the world of  QCD where nothing is well-defined.  One is already lost.  Coming back to Richard’s point of the  charged photon. Again one is going into the mushy – into the  mist. Give the photon an intrinsic  charge. Why not?  The answer is, not only that  charge is a divergence inconsistent  with light-speed  motion as I argued earlier, (not  a problem if one has a floppy light velocity though – such  photons would be, necessarily,  not composed of field and  be sub-light speed), but that it is a  mushy continuous charge thing. One should observe all  sorts of charges. One does not. One  sees charges only  associated with “particles”. A  charged photon should not close, but should repel itself. One  causes far more problems with the  conjecture than one  solves. The theory must not only  explain what is observed,  but also why other things are NOT  observed.  That comes to the other problem. There  is no charged photon theory. No differential equations  describing its motion. It ends up just  being a notion. A  notion, effectively, of charged  fields. Why not just make it a scalar charge? That is already  complex enough. The theory for  this was explored, for  example, by Dirac himself in the  fifties. It did not lead anywhere (yet, at least). Now coming back to Dirac and his (much  earlier) linear relativistic  theory. Dirac, in his  relativistic quantum mechanics,  does indeed integrate his  linear equation and derives a  motion consisting of a quickly  oscillating lightspeed  part, the zitterbewegung and an overall  motion characterised  by the normal energy as a half m v  squared part.  Very beautiful. He  does not get them separately –  they are the first two terms in an expansion. Incidentally  this also gets the de-Broglie wavelength right, with a doubled  Compton frequency nota bene. The  factor of two comes out. It  is not put in a-priori. This is what  happens in a proper relativistic linear theory. So what is the  problem, why do we not just  pack up go home and go fishing?  Job done. Two reasons:  firstly the zitterbewegung fluid in the  Dirac model is not fields but  some stuff with peculiar properties  defined by the new theory:  Spinors. These have the peculiar  property that you must rotate through 720 degrees to get back to  where you started from. This is good in itself – and goes a  long way to describing the fundamental  difference between  fermions and bosons. It is certainly a  big element of the truth.  Understanding these objects properly,  however, has proved beyond  the wit of generations of physicists (if  they are honest) – including Dirac himself and Feymann-  both of whom were bright and brave  enough to simply say so.  Dirac does so, for example, in his own  book, directly after deriving  the base solutions. Good man.  Others waffle – or put the problem into simple two-valued  groups such as SU(2). Stick it into simple maths and forget about  it. Make it an inviolable starting point  of further theory. Bit  wimpy – but safe! Moving spinors – even slowly moving spinors start  mixing with each other.  They are not a relativistically invariant  basis. Big problem!  I think the base problem with the Dirac  model is that it is still too simple – and I think that the point  where Dirac goes wrong is when he makes two different identifications  with the same thing. This messes everything up and leads to,  not only solutions, but also basic  dynamical terms “being  difficult to interpret because they  are complex” - as Dirac says.  Where this comes from is that he has  used, unwittingly, the same square root of minus one for  two conceptually different  things. Complex indeed, but not complex enough. And  mixed up at that. Coming back to a more advanced  theory: one has to explain why and how charges arise in a  pair-creation process. To do this one has  to understand field properly  (at least as the six components of  an antisymettric tensor – but tensor algebra does not go  far enough (yet) either).  One needs to get going with a  proper field theory – not just with a loosely based model. If you  are going to charge a photon this  cannot be ad-hoc. Are  you charging the electric field part or  the magnetic field part,  for example. Are you adding a 4-vector  (charge is the first component of the 4-current) to the  six-vector? Just what is it, exactly,  that you are proposing? How  do you propose to modify the undelying  theory to accommodate  your conjecture? For me, the charge comes about more  from, as Chip and John D are arguing, from a topological re-configuration  of the field such that it is everywhere radial in a double looped  configuration. The photon has field. The field is rectified by  the twist and the turn. The confinement  leads then to a confined  object appearing to be (and  actually being) charged. The turn itself – essential to the  re-configuration of the field, is engendered in my model not by a  charge, but by a dynamical scalar  rest-mass term in conjunction  with the electric component of  the field. This is a  seventh component in addition to  the six components of the EM field. You may also see it as an  element of energy. I agree with you  partially here, that  this is fundamental stuff – but so  is field and field is different. It is not a scalar.  The resulting composite object is  fermionic in that it a double-turn –a fundamental fermion. It is  charged in that it can inter-act and  exchange energy. In  isolation, it exhibits a radial  electric field – as does a charge. Why would you need to complicate  things by wanting the poor photon to be charged as well? You do  not need it! How are you ever going to calculate the charge from  first principles when you put a  random amount of it in to  begin with? You are going to get the  charge of the photon, plus  or minus the charge engendered by  the topology and the confinement. Why? I think at this point  one is doubly lost. One has had to give up the idea that EM propagates  at lightspeed and one has also  arbitrarily assigned a  charge to an imagined “charged  photon” – an object which is not observed in the real  world. Further, one has lost the  possibility of a theory to  work with as there is no theory of the  charged photon with equations  like the Maxwell equations, or  the Schroedinger equation, or  the Dirac equation. One  is then triply lost. Now, coming back to numbers, let  us say that I did want Martin and my old model to get the charge  exactly right (for example). There is a  simple way to do this  without too much fuss and without  varying the lightspeed or  introducing a charge to the photon. Just  allow the ratio of the minor to the major axes of the torus to  vary. If zero – one gets the charge slightly less than q. A bit  more – hey presto- just right. More  still … one can wind it up  to about 20 times the charge  observed. Why is this not a  result? Why does this not fix the ratio  of minor to major.  Well – for example could vary all  sorts of other things – why not flatten it slightly? Why not put it in  a cubical box (this value is then damn close –less than a  percent!). Why not stick a hole in it –  like a spindle? Why  not make it pear-shaped (this is not  as daft as it sounds and may  end up being the answer!). Yes – you can do anything in your mind. The  problem is that process is futile unless one has a proper  theory, or some experiment  which can distinguish  these things. Now, clearly, I’m hoping  that the new theory I propose may, ultimately, provide the  answer. My second choice would be that the extension of the Bateman  method, which Martin is pursuing, does the trick.  Maybe these will converge  or merge with some other thinking in  the group (even  better!). Perhaps we will find some  seminal experiment which fixes some aspect of it. Perhaps  the experiment has already been done and one or other of you know  about it. There is a lot of work between where  I am now and there though, and perhaps not enough life and  energy left in me to pursue it as much as  I would like, (squished as I  am by a pile of exams – though the  marking is now nearly  finished). The work to come requires  developing a canon of work  similar to that produced by dozens of  the greats in non-relativistic  quantum mechanics in the 1930’s –  except the base equations are much more complicated than the  simple Schroedinger equation. We  have equations, but  we need to find solutions to the  equations.  Plenty of work to do!  I’m hoping to convince a few  folk with enough talent and energy to  start getting stuck in to  this programme. The process can,  and probably will, throw up  problems with the original conception and  formulation. I agree here  with Chip!  No problem! If it is wrong –  modify it or throw it out and make up a new one. That is the proper  application of the scientific method. Anyway this has turned into too much of an  opus. Though it was started  in the morning it is now afternoon and  time for me to go and get on with some proper work. Marking  awaits! Bye for now, 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: Saturday, May 30, 2015 2:59 PM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Photon     John and Martin,       Thanks for your encouragement. The electron is a photon going round and round in the case of a  resting electron, otherwise it  is a photon going round  and round and forward in some kind of  helical motion, in which case it is not a standing field  in this reference frame. Whether or not the charge of a  charged photon moves at the speed of light  depends on the particular  model of the photon that one has. The  relativistic charged-photon/electron  model does not require a particular  photon model.The  charge that is detected, like the electron  mass that is detected, may  be moving at sub-light speed. Mass is  not more fundamental than energy, and is proposed to be  composed of light-speed energy in the  case of the electron.        Richard        
   On May 30, 2015, at 5:03 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:          Can anyone clearly explain why a  charged photon of spin 1/2 hbar and rest mass 0.511MeV/c^2  is not the missing link between the  uncharged photon and the  electron?           Yes, I can. The electron is a 511keV photon going round and round. It’s a charged particle because it’s a photon going round and  round.  The photon moving linearly is a  field variation, but when it’s  going round and round,  it’s a standing field. That’s  why it has mass too.  It’s like the photon In a box . Only it’s a box of its own making. Light  displaces its own path into  a closed path, because light is  displacement current. And it does what it says on the can. Because  space waves.             Regards     John D           PS: Counter-rotating vortices repel, co-rotating vortices attract, see On Vortex Particles by David St John. They ain’t called spinors  for nothing!              From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
 Sent: 29 May 2015 23:47
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Photon              Richard, yes, thank you.       That is indeed a very good  remark, you are probably very right.
 Let me think about it a bit  more,       Best,       Martin

 Verstuurd vanaf mijn  iPhone     
 Op 29 mei 2015 om 21:45 heeft  Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:  
    Chip, John and Martin,          I think you gentlemen are onto  something. A photon has three related levels of quantization  (E=hf, p=h/lambda and spin = hbar) —  perhaps only the third is  truly quantized in the sense of  having a discrete value. An electron has two more  levels of discrete quantization  (charge and rest mass)  which may be closely related to its  spin 1/2 hbar. The electron’s charge may be closely related to its  spin hbar/2 in the case of the electron, but not the case of the  neutrino). An electron gains further levels of discrete quantization  (its energy eigenvalues) by being bound  in an atom. The more  discrete quantum levels a quantum has,  the more it is “bound” to a  material condition.  Can anyone clearly explain why a  charged photon of spin 1/2 hbar and rest mass 0.511MeV/c^2  is not the missing link between the  uncharged photon and the  electron?            Richard            
    On May 29, 2015, at 12:07 PM,  Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:              Hi Martin               With your experience and  depth of understanding regarding  photons, and the evidence,  I am of course inclined to agree with you  regarding the nature of  photons.               Regarding: “How and why that works the same  for radio waves and gamma rays, is  a mystery. Well this bit  is my personal opinion, of course.”        There is perhaps a difference  between the interactions we observe  when using longer  wavelength radio waves as compared to  the particle-sized gamma rays.  The radio waves are a  source of field influence  which can cause electron drift, just as a DC field can move  electrons, but at the scale of the  electron, or even the  electron’s “orbit” in an atom, the  frequency of the radio wave  is far less “important” than the  frequency of a gamma ray would be.  The resonances of the particle  would be less likely to be significantly influenced by the radio  wave, but the radio wave would still  exert a force on the  electron. Radio waves are generally  detected by measuring the  movement of electrons in conductive  materials where the electrons in the materials are fairly  easy to move. It seems likely that it  takes at least the motion of  one electron in the transmitting  antenna to induce any  motion of an electron in a receiving  antenna, assuming the same  configuration of transmitter  and receiver antennae. But the incident  field on the receiving  antenna may not be an integral value  of “photon energy”.                Is this why you refer to a  “continuum wave”?  Because the absorber only  uses what is can use of the available  energy? So that a photon  may actually contain more energy than is  absorbed in an interaction?               Chip                 From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
 Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:42 PM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Photon                 Dear Chip,
 now you are really getting  there for sure, those questions and  statements are at the right  level to begin with. But your kind of  understanding certainly  converges with my ideas.       That me be good or bad, but I would judge it as good. ;-)       See for extra comments below…       Cheers, Martin                Dr. Martin B. van der Mark       Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare               Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven       High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)       Prof. Holstlaan 4       5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands       Tel: +31 40 2747548                  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
 Sent: vrijdag 29 mei 2015 15:45
 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion'
 Subject: Re: [General] Photon                 H John W               Thank you.  One reason for asking the  question and pursuing the thought  process, was to try to  further illustrate the lack of any  explanation so far which supports the strict self-quantization  of photons. This has been leading me to think that the source for  quantization is the spin ½ configuration of fermions. (Which would  act as quantizers both while  emitting and absorbing). If  this is true then it means that, for a  photon, E=hv only holds  true because of the emitter and absorber.                MvdM: This may be exactly right.               Regarding the uncertainty  principle:       If we take a single point  snapshot of a sinusoidal function we  are very uncertain  about its frequency, the more time we  spend sampling the wave the  more certain we become of its frequency.  Now if we are using sinusoidal waves to create  particles, many of the properties of  the particles will be  uncertain with our measurements,  because the measurements we can take disturb the system, and  are only valid for brief times or  spaces before the  information is no longer valid, due to  measurement. Because when we set up a measurement, we create  conditions where discrete waves and  fields will interact,  creating an energy exchange which  occurs in a very finite  timeframe, disturbing completely  what we are measuring. This  correlation to the  uncertainty principle is one of the  reasons that I feel fields and waves are the best candidate for  the fundamental makeup of  particles. Fields and  waves in these configurations naturally  create an uncertainty in  measurement which correlates  exactly with the observed, understood, and measured uncertainties.  The hydrogen atom is such a  nice tool for modeling and understanding these issues.               MvdM: yes and this kind of uncertainty is given by what is called the Fourier limit amended with  hbar               Of course the use of the word  orbit to describe the electron’s  state in an atom is too  ambiguous to actually describe its  state.  The electron exists in a  space surrounding the nucleus,  and spins about it, but  it’s more like the electron surrounds the  nucleus and less like an  orbit.               MvdM: true, and this is why detailed orbital calculations in a photon model for the electron are  totally futile; only a real theory  will tell.               So what I am getting to is  that the different “spin modes”  of the photon and the  electron are significant.  I think the photon has  what we may call a symmetric  field spin mode, where it  spins about the point between the  positive and negative field lines, making it charge neutral. But  the electron’s principal spin is a  non-symmetrical field spin  mode, with the point between the positive  and negative fields  displaced from the spin axis, giving it  charge.  Apparently this has other  important effects as well.  It seems this spin mode  allows the electron to be quantized  based on energy  density, unlike the photon.               The underlying reason I am  asking these questions is related to the  formulation for field  equations.  There seems to be a  difference between the behavior of  the fields in the photon and  the quantization behavior of  the fields in fermions.  The spin configuration  seems to be the cause for the forces  which create quantization.               MvdM: Yes and the reason is that the electron needs binding forces and nonlinearity, the “free”  photon doesn’t               But back to the photon:  Since the photon cannot be  quantized by its internal energy  density, does it spin due to  the spin angular momentum  imparted by the emitter? Is the photon actually not internally  quantized at all? That is to say, is there no inherent  mechanism within the photon itself  which imposed a specific  quantization? Is the relationship  E=hv imposed only at the emission or absorption? And therefore  can we create photons without spin?  Or can we create photons  where E=hv is not true? And are photons  really particles at  all, or are they just waves, which  seem like particles because of their interaction  with the quantization of emitters  and absorbers.               MvdM: Good questions, I go for waves. The photon is merely a  quantum of energy that is  taken up by the absorber from a  continuum wave. It is  not a particle by it self, and doen’t  need to have the machinery on-board to keep itself together or be  quantized or what. It is just a Maxwell wave. But this Maxwell wave  can only be emitted and absorbed  according to the rules of  (boundary conditions imposed by)  emitter and absorber. How  and why that works the same for radio  waves and gamma rays, is a mystery. Well this bit is my personal  opinion, of course.               While we could view many of the  question as rhetorical it seems that we may need to understand and  answer them as literal.  Chandra, Martin, All?               Chip                         From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
 Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 4:29 PM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Photon               Hi Chip and everyone,

 Good thought but no-  quantisation cannot be dependent on  energy density. This  is what experiment tells you -  and is the beauty of experiment.  Experimentally photons can  have any wave-train length. The  photon energy, however, is  related to its frequency alone. Photons  from a source have a well-defined energy only if they are  pretty long (this is a consequence of the uncertainty  principle). There are lots of people in  the group (Martin and  Chandra for two) - who know lots more  about this than I do and some who perform experiments  interfering, stretching and bending light.

 Any proper theory needs  to describe experiment - all of it -  not just the bits we may  happen to know about!

 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: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:51 PM
 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion'
 Subject: Re: [General] Photon       Hi John W and All               While looking at quantization  which may be caused by a twist term  included with Maxwell’s  equations, at least one puzzle remains  unanswered for me.  The nature of photons is  still a bit difficult to understand.  It is much easier to  envision a photon of a single  wavelength than a photon  which is many wavelengths. If energy  density is the cause for quantization (spin and frequency) it  is more difficult to see how that  can be so, if a photon may  have an arbitrary number of  cycles, but have its energy density spread out over all  cycles.  What do you think the likelihood  is that not only frequency but also the number of cycles in a  photon is quantized?  If this is the case then we  could still understand how the correct  spin would result from  energy density for each cycle. But  then we would have to also  address the energy density to twist  relationship for single wavelength structures like the  electron models we have been  creating.???               It seems evident that  quantization for frequency is dependent  upon energy, and I assumed  it was therefore due to energy  density. Which works nicely  for single wavelength photons.  Experiment seems to indicate that  we can create photons, using  various methods, which have an  arbitrary number of  wavelengths. How can we physically  correlate this to photon frequency quantization, when the  energy density of the photon has been  spread out over many  cycles? Is there some apparently  “non-local” mechanism which couples the energy of all cycles in  a single photon, and therefore  helps to retain the  E=hv relationship?               Thoughts?               Chip                 From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
 Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:46 PM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                  Hello,

 Briefly - yes pi mesons are  real particles. They leave  nice long traces in cloud or bubble chambers. The  rho is equally real.

 Gluons have never been  observed directly. The W and Z are  sufficiently short-lived  that they are observed as  so-called resonances.

 Regards, John.         From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Richard  Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
 Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:21 PM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus      John D,            And according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle , the pi meson and rho meson  are virtual particles for proton-neutron attraction in nuclei, as are  the W and Z bosons for the weak nuclear force.  Are gluons, pi mesons and W  and Z particles ever real?               
     On May 24, 2015, at 8:58 AM,  John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:                   Richard:                   See the Wikipedia gluon article, note the bit that says as opposed to virtual ones  found in ordinary hadrons. The gluons in a proton are  virtual. As in not real. And LOL, perhaps  the same is true of the  quarks!                    Regards         John D                      From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
 Sent: 24 May 2015 16:12
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                      Chip, Martin, John D and others,              I suspect that the fundamental  quantities of both spacetime and  particles/fields are frequency  (directly proportional to the energy  of a particle and inversely  proportional to time) and wavelength  (inversely proportional  to the  momentum of a particle and directly  proportional to space). Spin is  related to energy-momentum  topology. Electric charge seems  related to topology.   Particles with rest mass are composed  of charged photons and related speed-of-light particles like  charged gluons (normal gluons are  electrically uncharged but  have color charge while quarks have  both electrical charge and color charge.) And I suspect  that the energy quantum (composing both speed-of-light  particles and rest-mass particles) is  the unifying link between  spacetime and particles/fields (and therefore  quantum mechanics/QED/QCD/quantum  gravity) and may be the precursor as  well as the sustainer of  both.                Richard                 
      On May 24, 2015, at 7:06 AM,  Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:                      John D,            I fully agree with your reply to Chip, thanks for the details!           Please join us at the bar;-)           Cheers three!           Martin

 Verstuurd vanaf mijn  iPhone       
 Op 24 mei 2015 om 15:56 heeft  John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> het volgende geschreven:  
       Chip:                       I’m blue, you’re black:                       As all of you know, after  Relativity was introduced and adopted, the  popular belief for a while,  was that space was empty, and that a media of space was not required.  Now however it seems that  most physicists have accepted  that space is a media, with  quantum attributes, and some level  of energy density.                        That popular belief was a cargo-cult false belief, because  Einstein made it clear in  his 1920  Leyden Address that space was the  “aether” of general relativity. He made it clear that space was  not some emptiness, but instead was a  thing that is “conditioned”  by a massive body such as a star.                       If space is a media, what  would we perceive which is different  from space being empty?                       That popular belief was a cargo-cult belief, because Einstein made it clear in his 1920  Leyden Address that space was the “aether” of general relativity, and space was not empty.                       Some would say there is no  perceptible difference. But is that  precisely true?                       No. Like Einstein said in 1929, a field is a state of  space.                       If space is a media, it  implies a preferred reference  frame in space.  This is an item which would be  difficult, or perhaps impossible to  detect, but for one item.  If space is a media with a preferred  reference frame, then  clocks in that reference frame would be  the fastest clocks possible in the universe.                        There’s also the CMB reference frame. It’s preferred in that it tells you your speed through the universe. And whilst it isn’t an  absolute frame in the strict sense, the universe is as absolute as it  gets.                       One thing which would alter  the ability to test this is a gross frame dragging of space around  massive bodies or concentrations  of mass.                       See the asymmetric Kerr metric as a source of CP  violation. It’s to do with galactic frame-dragging.                       If space is a media, and if  frame dragging does occur                       It’s a popscience myth that it isn’t a medium, electromagnetic waves do not propagate because an  electric wave creates a magnetic wave and vice versa. I’m  confident that frame dragging does occur,  and that the electron  electromagnetic field is a fierce example  of it.                       A definition of TIME is the  underlying objective of this line of  questions.  For I see two possibilities,  one is that time is an inherent  property of space and, as  the current relativity teaches, a  fourth dimension in our “spacetime”.  The other is that time is simply the  rate at which particles can interact, caused by the fact that  fields can only propagate at a finite  velocity, and that we are  made of particles which are  circularly confined fields.            I feel the first explanation is  less likely because it does not show  cause, it does not tell us  why time is part of space, just that it  is.  The second explanation is  the one I currently prefer because  it is a simple consequence of  the nature of space and particles, it  shows cause.                       I prefer it too, and so did Einstein. See Time Explained and A World Without Time: the forgotten legacy of  Godel and Einstein.                        Is time truly a fourth  dimension at the lowest level of  analysis of space?                       No. We live in a world of space and motion. Our time dimension is derived from motion. It’s a  dimension in the sense of measure, not  in the sense of freedom of  motion.                        Regards           John D                         From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
 Sent: 24 May 2015 14:24
 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion'
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                         Hi All                       We are working on the  foundations of physics.  Studying and trying to  decipher the result of experiment in  a causal manner.                       As we do that it keeps bringing  me back to the nature of space itself.  John M has made some good  points about starting from the makeup of  space and working our  way up from there.  John D has communicated a  solid and basic approach to many of the  issues.  Many of us have proposed  models, field formulations, and a host of  other possible explanations  for what we observe.                       As we reflect on what we have  done and what we still need to do, there are some things which  may still need to be addressed and  answered before we can  make progress in certain areas.                       For example, the nature of  space and time, are fundamental to  understanding physics.  Some of us feel we have a  reasonable handle on this, and it  is a very basic part of  what we are doing, but I am thinking  that we do not yet have it  quite right. For the endeavor we  have undertaken, I think close is not good enough.                       First I want to state clearly  that I do not yet propose to have the  answers to the nature of  space, all I have is conjecture so  far.                       As all of you know, after  Relativity was introduced and adopted, the  popular belief for a while,  was that space was empty, and that a media of space was not required.  Now however it seems that  most physicists have accepted  that space is a media, with  quantum attributes, and some level  of energy density.            However many of the subtle  suggestions engendered during that  time when it was perceived  that space was empty, and much of the  “foundation” of relativity  is still based on there being no media which  constitutes space.                       If space is a media, what  would we perceive which is different  from space being empty?  Some would say there is no perceptible  difference. But is that  precisely true?                       If space is a media, it  implies a preferred reference  frame in space.  This is an item which would be  difficult, or perhaps impossible to  detect, but for one item.           If space is a media with a  preferred reference frame, then  clocks in that reference  frame would be the fastest clocks  possible in the universe.  All clocks in all other  inertial frames would be slower. One  thing which would alter  the ability to test this is a gross frame  dragging of space around  massive bodies or concentrations  of mass.                       It seems that relativity has  been tested with regards to the slowing  of clocks with relative  velocity to a precision of about 1.6% to  10% depending on which  experiments you prefer. But of course  these tests are at low  relative velocities and only represent  a narrow prat of the spectrum of tests which would be  required to absolutely validate the  entire curve. And an error  of 1.6% is still a substantial  error for this type of validation.                       If space is a media, and if  frame dragging does occur, again it would be difficult to verify the  existence of the media using clocks,  depending on how much frame  dragging there is. If space is a media,  how can we calculate the  frame dragging and quantify it?                       A definition of TIME is the  underlying objective of this line of  questions.  For I see two possibilities,  one is that time is an inherent  property of space and, as  the current relativity teaches, a  fourth dimension in our “spacetime”.  The other is that time is simply the  rate at which particles can interact, caused by the fact that  fields can only propagate at a finite  velocity, and that we are  made of particles which are  circularly confined fields.                       I feel the first explanation is  less likely because it does not show  cause, it does not tell us  why time is part of space, just that it  is.  The second explanation is  the one I currently prefer because  it is a simple consequence of  the nature of space and particles, it  shows cause.                       One thing I think we must  remember as we construct a physical model  is that we are dealing with  the fundamentals and  foundations, the building blocks so to speak, and in that endeavor  we will probably find instances where a phenomenon  like the definition of time, or the  definition of charge, or the  definition of spin, is not the same at  the micro level as it is  at our macro observable level. If we  do our job well we will discover the causes and sources of  many of these types of phenomena. At  levels below the causal  level for any of these phenomena, the  macro rules no longer apply  in full.                       After saying that, a question would  naturally arise, if time as we measure it is merely the result of  the interaction of particles, how  and when do we incorporate  the dimension of time in our calculations?  Is the development of  time at such a low level that we should  include it in all calculations, just as relativity  teaches? Or does time come into play only at the particle  level, and the finite velocity of  light predominates at lower levels? Is time truly a  fourth dimension at the lowest  level of analysis of  space? Or does it just appear to be that way  from our perspectives  due to the nature of our particulate  construction and measurements?                       Any and all opinion and  argument is eagerly appreciated.  If you could please let me  know your take on this and the reasons  you feel that way I will be  grateful.                       Chip                         From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
 Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:02 AM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                     Hello Chip,

 Have been meaning to say  for some time: you are producing some  beautiful models.

 Would be good to talk at  some stage.

 Regards. John (W)      From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
 Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:59 PM
 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion'
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus         Hi Richard                       Sorry I was modeling what I though  was the spin 1 photon model of the electron.           This is what I perceive to be  your spin ½ photon model of the  electron to be with  velocity.  Same velocity steps as  before.                       Nested set of models,                       <image001.png>                       Slow trajectory lines, purple,  faster trajectory lines tending  toward green.                       Here is the code for the  electron’s reference frame for the  above graphic:           X(ii)=Roc*(1/y^2+(1/y)*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc))*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc);           Y(ii)=Roc*(1/y^2+(1/y)*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc))*sind(y*c*(t)/Roc);           Z(ii)=(Roc/y)*sind(y*c*(t)/Roc);                       Note: there is still a very small  electron model (with velocity 0.9988c) at the center of this graphic.  In this model the contraction is  in all directions,  not just longitudinally.  I think this is correct,  but it does not agree with some  interpretations of  relativity.  It is also difficult to  see how this model, without spiral fields,  would look the same to a  moving observer when the electron  is “at rest”.                        And the model is of course not  really spherical.           Does this match your results?           Can you share the graphics model  you have done?                       Chip                         From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
 Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 7:31 AM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                          John D., Chip and Andrew,                              Isn’t it the case that in standard  physics (experimentally confirmed) the measured spin of an electron  is relative to the motion of the observer of the electron, just  as the observed momentum of an  electron is relative to  the motion of the observer of the  electron? If an observer moving west to east with a relativistic  velocity v1  passes a “stationary” electron (in  some reference frame) , the electron has an observed momentum (when  it measured) going west, and a spin either up or down (when it  is measured) in the east-west  direction  and a de Broglie wavelength  corresponding to the relative  velocity v1, while when an  observer moving relativistically  south to north with velocity  v2 passes a “stationary" electron , the  electron has an observed momentum (when it is measured)  going south, a spin that is up or down  (when it is measured) in  the north-south direction, and  a de Broglie wavelength  corresponding to its relative  velocity v2. (In QM,  velocity, spin and de Broglie  wavelength probably can’t all be  measured at the same  time).                            The relativistic energy-momentum  equation for the electron E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 applies to the  electron described above when  observed by two observers  with two different relativistic  velocities compared to the electron. I showed in my article “the  electron is a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength”  that the same relativistic energy-momentum  equation applies to a  helically moving double-looping  photon that may compose an  electron, where E is the energy of the  photon (the same as the total energy of the electron  composed by the photon), p is the  longitudinal momentum of  the helically moving photon (the same as  the momentum p of the  electron being modeled), E/c is the total  momentum of the photon along its helical path, and mc is the  transverse momentum of the helically moving photon, which  contributes to the electron’s spin up or  spin down value hbar/2  in the case of a slow moving electron  (modeled by the double-looping photon). So every electron  observed to have a momentum p  will in this view also have  a spin hbar/2 up or down in the direction  of its momentum.                            Also, when a photon is Doppler  shifted-due to relative motion of the  light source away from or  towards the observer, the observed  wavelength of the photon is  lengthened or shortened accordingly.  Doesn’t this imply that the  length of the whole photon (if it  consists of a certain number of wavelengths) is also  lengthened or shortened accordingly?                           Richard                    
       On May 22, 2015, at 12:06 AM,  John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:                          David:                           Why don’t photons get length contracted? Because they’re just  waves in space moving at the  speed of waves in space. A ripple in a  rubber mat doesn’t get  length contracted, nor do waves  in space. Then when you make  those waves go round and round, they  still don’t get length-contracted. Then when you move past them  fast, they still don’t get length  contracted. You might say  the path of those waves is different, but  it isn’t, they didn’t change,  you did. And if you boil yourself down  to a single electron, and  boil that down to a ring, then draw  circles and helixes, I  think it gets to the bottom of things.                            Chip:                           Yes, I’m certain relative velocity is a determining factor.  But note that “we” are made of  electrons and things, so IMHO it’s best to start with two particles,  such as the electron and the positron. If you set them down with  no initial relative motion they  move linearly together, and  we talk of electric force.                             <image005.jpg>             However if you threw the postiron over the top of the electron  they’d move together and  go around one another, whereupon we  talk of magnetic  force. Note that this is relative  velocity, not relativistic velocity. I’ve seen people explain the magnetic field around the  current-in-the-wire using length  contraction, but IMHO that’s a fairy tale, and I prefer a “screw” answer.                              Regards             John D                             From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
 Sent: 21 May 2015 21:39
 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion'
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                             Hi John D                           Regarding…             Sorry, I don’t think that can be right because you could go past an electron at .9988c.                           Yes, I am coming to think that  maybe the spiral fields caused by  limited field propagation  velocity, might play a larger role  than I had first considered.             I think Martin was onto this  aspect already.             Wondering if relative velocity is a  factor in determining what portion of the spiral field we  detect or interact with? And if so, how  that might work.                           <image006.png>                           The earlier electron model  graphics are created from the math that  Richard developed for  his spin ½ electron.                           Chip                                                                       From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
 Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:15 PM
 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion'
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                             Chip:                           Sorry, I don’t think that can be right because you could go past an electron at .9988c.                           Andrew:                           Photons don’t get length contracted, and electrons are made out of photons in pair  production. If you simplify the electron  to a photon going round in  a circle, then take one point on the  circumference, you would say  it describes a circular path. But when you  move past the electron fast,  you would say that point was describing a  helical path. Then when you  consider all points of the circumference,  you might say the electron  was a cylinder rather than a circle. And if  you were that electron, everything to you would look  length-contracted, because you’re  smeared out. If I was a motionless   electron you’d say I was length  contracted. But I might say I was the one moving, and that you’re length-contracted.                             Regards             John                             From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
 Sent: 21 May 2015 17:52
 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion'
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                             Hi Andrew                           Images from the electron’s  reference frame.                           For Richard’s model using  the spin 1 photon, and drawing in the  electron’s reference  frame, his math produces the following  image for a set of nested  electron models with velocities up  to 0.9988c.             <image007.png>                           The small grey sphere in the  center is the electron model for 0.9988c.                            So in this model the electron  shrinks in all directions, but remains  principally spherical when  viewed from the electron’s reference  frame.                           Chip                           From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
 Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:15 AM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                         Dear Chip,  I learn something new every time. However, it  may not be true.  If I interpret your images properly, the  fastest electrons are the longest. However, relativistic  shortening should shrink the length. I  had expected the electron  to 'pancake' in the direction of  motion. You show the  opposite. Is the pancake only in the  electron's frame and the appearance from our frame is one of an  extended structure? If both, do they  cancel and, in reality, it is  still spherical?        Andrew                              On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:36  PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:       
         Hi Richard                           So it is a bit more difficult  to visualize exactly what is going on  from the graphics with  velocity.                           We increase the velocity is in  steps from zero through 0.9988c.                           From the Z axis the illustration  looks like:             <image008.jpg>                           Showing the reduced radius with  velocity.                           But when we look at the model  slightly off axis (Z axis) we see this:                           <image009.jpg>                           So this is a set of nested  electron models with different  velocities, each starting  from the same point (upper right of the  illustration). These are  drawn from an external observers  frame and are not shown in the electron’s reference frame.                            In the electron’s reference  frame we would see closure to the  trajectory, but in this  reference frame, the trajectory  (since it is moving) is not closed.                           Chip                             From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
 Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:29 AM               
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General  Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                                  Chip,                  Please correct a couple of  typos in my last email. The TEQ  (transluminal energy  quantum) moves on the surface of a torus,  not a helix. Also the first  helical radius mentioned should have  been Ro sqrt(2) = 1.414 Ro , not Ro sqrt(2)/2 = 1.414 Ro since  sort(2)/2 = 0.707 not 1.414 .  Thanks.                   Richard                       
        On May 20, 2015, at 6:42 PM,  Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:                              Chip,                   Nice graphics!                                  Shouldn’t the electric field lines of  an electron at some distance from the electron model be pointing  inward linearly towards the  electron from infinity on  all sides, since the electron's  electric field (due to its  electric charge) falls off as 1/r^2 .  I don’t understand why the electric field lines appear closed  in your diagrams.                                   In my original resting  electron model the TEQ was a circulating  negative electric  charge which circulated on the surface of  a helix. I called the  circulating TEQ a photon-like  object since it was similar to my TEQ model of a photon.  I was assuming at that time that  the photon in my resting electron model had spin 1, even though I  had adjusted the helical radius so that the circulating  TEQ generated the magnetic moment of the  electron of 1 Bohr magneton,  requiring a helical radius for the TEQ of  Ro sqrt(2)/2 = 1.414 Ro which  created the spindle torus in my model .  So this was actually  neither a spin 1 photon (whose radius  for a resting electron would  have been 2Ro, or a spin 1/2 photon, whose  radius for a resting electron would be Ro, as in the 3D models  that you and I generated from the moving electron equations I  proposed. Since I currently  prefer the model of an  electron composed of a spin 1/2  circulating photon, this doesn’t  generate the electron’s  magnetic moment of 1 Bohr magneton.  But it generates a  magnetic moment more than 1/2 Bohr  magneton which would be produced by a charge circulating at  light speed in a simple double loop of  radius Ro. I haven’t done  the calculation for the  magnetic moment generated by  my spin 1/2 photon model  of the electron, but I suspect that  it would be 0.707 Bohr  magneton (just a guess at this point).  The calculation of this magnetic moment from the TEQ  trajectory equations for a charged TEQ  in the spin 1/2 photon  model is relatively straightforward  though.                                   By the way, have you looked at the  side view of the actual TEQ trajectory at various values of v/c of the  electron in the spin 1/2 photon moving-electron model that I  proposed (and that you programmed and  graphed in 3D to show how  the model size changes as 1/gamma at  various values of v/c)? The  side view of the TEQ trajectory for  a moving electron contains some surprises, at least for me.  I thought that at high values of v/c (say 0.99 or 0.999) the TEQ would  just appear from the side view to rotate helically around its  reducing and increasingly more linear  helical trajectory   (whose trajectory reduces as  1/(gamma^2), with the TEQ’s helical radius reducing as 1/gamma. But  that’s apparently not what happens.  Could you check this  with your 3D program?                                     Richard                                          
        On May 19, 2015, at 8:45 AM,  Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:                              Hi Richard                               If your spin 1 photon model  of the electron is similar to  John W and Martin’s model  in that the field lines always orient  with the negative end outwards (providing for charge) the  estimated field distribution  is similar to this  illustration. (Equatorial View)                               <image001.jpg>                               (Top View from Z axis)               <image002.jpg>                               (45 degree elevation  view)               <image004.jpg>                               Red lines represent  negative ends of field lines, Blue  lines represent positive, black is the transport  radius, faint green line is one  circulation at the transport  radius.               Photon field amplitude is  shown as a cosine function of  wavelength/2.                               Chip                                                 From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
 Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:06 AM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles -  General Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                                 Chip,                   Perfect! It would also be good to have  the pair of tori seen an an angle from above their ‘equator’ to  get a more 3-D quality.                       Richard                           
         On May 5, 2015, at 6:07 AM,  Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:                                  Hi Richard                                   How do these look?                                   <image003.png>                 <image001.jpg>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Chip                                                                       From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
 Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 1:18 PM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles -  General Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                                    Hi Chip,                    The radius of the circle in  the horn torus (spin 1/2 photon model)  should visually be  (since it is actually) 1/2 of the radius  of the circle in the spindle  torus (spin 1 photon model) -- the spin  1/2 photon model is  smaller than the spin 1 photon model.  Thanks! And could you perhaps show the energy quantum  trajectory in a different color that the  torus background so  the trajectory stands out better?                       Richard                                       On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:42  AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:         
           Hi Richard                                   <image004.png>                                                     <image005.png>                                   Chip                                     From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
 Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 12:19 PM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles -  General Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                                       Hi Chip,                     Thanks. And finally, the vertical ovals  of the tori should be circles because the circulating  quantum has the same radius in the  vertical and horizontal  directions.                           Richard                              
          On May 4, 2015, at 9:32 AM,  Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:                                      Hi Richard                                       Thank you.                                       Here you go:                   <image001.png>                                       <image002.png>                                       Chip                                         From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
 Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 10:43 AM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles -  General Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Torus                                         Hi Chip,                      Both tori should be  symmetrical above and below the  z-axis and center on z=0.                           Richard                                 
           On May 4, 2015, at 8:16 AM,  Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:                                          Hi Richard                                           <image001.jpg>                                           Viewed from the Z axis:                     <image002.jpg>                                           And from the equatorial  plane:                     <image003.jpg>                                           Chip                                             From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
 Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 11:07 PM
 To: Nature of Light and Particles -  General Discussion
 Subject: Re: [General] position                                              Chip and all,                          Here are some equations that relate to the  modeling of a circulating photon as an electron. The second and  third set include my own model of the photon. The first set  doesn’t require a particular  model for the photon, except  as mentioned below. The first model is  the one that generates the  de Broglie wavelength as explained in  my article mentioned below.                                               1. Here is the set of  parametric equations for the helical  trajectory of double-looping  photon that models a free electron, and   whose circular radius for a  resting electron is Ro=hbar/2mc.  The speed of the photon  along this trajectory is always c. The  longitudinal or z-component  of the photon’s speed is the  electron’s velocity v along the  z-axis. The frequency of  the photon around the helical axis  is proportional to the circulating photon/electron's  energy E=gamma mc^2. The distance of the photon’s helical  trajectory from the z-axis for an  electron whose speed is v, is  proportional to 1/gamma^2. This equation  is in my article “The  electron is a charged photon with the de  Broglie wavelength”. This equation does not include a  particular model of the photon, but  assumes that the photon  follows the relations c=f lambda, E=hf  and p=h/lambda. Both helicities of the helical  trajectory are given.                     _______________________________________________
 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>           
                               _______________________________________________
 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>          

_______________________________________________
 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> 
                            _______________________________________________
 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>         
                         _______________________________________________
 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>        

_______________________________________________
 If you no longer wish to  receive communication from the  Nature of Light and  Particles General Discussion  List at mules333 at gmail.com
 <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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 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>       

      _______________________________________________
 If you no longer wish to  receive communication from the  Nature of Light and  Particles General Discussion  List atmartin.van.der.mark at philips.com
 <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
 Click here to unsubscribe
 </a>      
                  The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under  applicable law. The message is  intended solely for the  addressee(s). If you are not the intended  recipient, you are hereby  notified that any use, forwarding,  dissemination, or reproduction  of this message is  strictly prohibited and may be  unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact  the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original  message.
 <image001.png><image001.png>_______________________________________________
 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>      
                _______________________________________________
 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>     
                    _______________________________________________
 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>    

    _______________________________________________
 If you no longer wish to  receive communication from the  Nature of Light and  Particles General Discussion  List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
 <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.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>   
         _______________________________________________
 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>  

  _______________________________________________
 If you no longer wish to receive communication  from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atmartin.van.der.mark at philips.com
 <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.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>  

 _______________________________________________
 If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
 <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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 nick_green at blueyonder.co.uk
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/nick_green%40blueyonder.co.uk?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 davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%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/20150611/35bbf2a2/attachment-0001.htm>