[General] Photon

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear John D,

RE: gravitation.   Once again we are in close agreement.

Andrew

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:41 PM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
wrote:

> Chip:
>
>
>
> Re this:
>
>
>
> The fields of the hydrogen atom, since they reach off to infinity, and
> there are two oppositely charged particles occupying a small space, cancel
> each other very well indeed.
>
>
>
> They do cancel each other very well. But *not quite*. For a
> low-dimensional back-to-front analogy, imaging grabbing hold of a rubber
> sheet with your left hand and twisting clockwise. Then close by, grab the
> rubber sheet with your right hand and twist anticlockwise. The two opposite
> twists almost cancel, but not quite. There’s now a tension gradient in the
> rubber sheet. In the real world we’re dealing with 3D space and an
> energy-pressure gradient rather than a tension gradient, wherein  c =
> √(1/ε0μ0) varies. And the name we give to it is *a gravitational field*.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> John D
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=
> btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Chip
> Akins
> *Sent:* 17 June 2015 13:20
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
>
>
> Hi John W
>
>
>
> For most of my adult life, I believed as you do, that relativity should be
> applied to everything, simply because I completely bought Einstein’s
> premise regarding the reason for relativity.
>
>
>
> In the last few years however, more of the situation has become clear to
> me.  So I now feel that the cause for relativity is identifiable, and that
> its specific form is slightly different than Einstein envisioned.
>
>
>
> So I understand your view.  Been there.  And I can understand your
> feelings and insistence that your view is the only possible correct one.
>
>
>
> But there is, for me, a significant amount of evidence otherwise. Simple
> stuff, cause and effect.
>
>
>
> Yes, a confined set of fields, as in an electron, will be specifically
> subject to transformation.  And it is made of a “photon”.  But the photon’s
> fields are still traveling at their natural velocity.  The changes to the
> confined photon are due to the confinement, due to the fact that it is not
> free to travel in a “straight” line.
>
>
>
> And I would argue that the velocity of fields through space is not just
> limited, but “fixed”, except for the effects of inhomogeneous space
> itself.  That the fields are principally the same speed whether traveling
> in a “straight” line like a photon, or confined.  That the velocity of the
> fields is what creates time, as we know it and measure it.  But the fields
> travel at the velocity determined by space, whether linear or radial.
> Their actual velocity in space does not change with relativistic movement.
>
>
>
> Regarding the extent of fields. Of course, the electron, a charged
> particle, is quite different then the hydrogen atom, two oppositely charged
> particles.  The fields of the hydrogen atom, since they reach off to
> infinity, and there are two oppositely charged particles occupying a small
> space, cancel each other very well indeed.  But the two fields still extend
> far beyond, to infinity. So yes, there is a beginning, as John D might say,
> the center of “displacement” of space, but no, there is no end to the
> fields, they just get weaker with distance from the center of
> “displacement”.
>
>
>
> And regarding: It is true that the numbers are also important - but not
> at the cost of unphysical models.
>
> Exactly my point.
>
>
>
> A linearly propagating photon cannot be accelerated in its direction of
> motion. Any attempt to do so will only increase the energy in the photon
> and not its velocity. So accelerating a photon in any other direction is
> changing its direction, but not its speed. When we confine a photon that is
> what we are doing.
>
>
>
> So in the examples you provided, of confined photons, photon between
> mirrors and such, yes, space and time are correctly treated with
> relativistic transformation, but the photon itself remains unchanged in
> that it continues, at the same speed. In a confined photon comprising a
> particle, you must add energy to the photon in order to accelerate the
> particle, this is the only way the forces can remain balanced and keep the
> particle intact.  The faster the particle moves forward, the smaller the
> confinement radius and longer the helix.  The proper use of transformation.
>
>
>
> When the action of the confined photon is viewed from the local inertial
> frame, it looks different, naturally, than it does when viewed from another
> frame, all of this is precisely what I am saying.
>
>
>
> But relativity, if caused by the speed of light, and the idea that we are
> made of light, is different than Einstein’s relativity, it is more like
> Lorentz relativity, and time is the result of the speed of light.
>
>
>
> So I do get what you are saying and I believed it for years.  But do you
> get what I am saying? I doesn’t seem you have seen it yet.
>
>
>
> Warmest Regards
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *John Williamson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2015 9:03 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
>
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> Thank you for your perseverance!
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip
> Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2015 1:18 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> Hi John W
>
>
>
> I understand your concern.  If you are of the opinion that Photons
> normally propagating at the speed of light should be treated
> relativistically.  Then it seems like my suggestions are just picking
> something to make it fit.
>
>
>
> I'm suggesting that EVERYTHING should be treated relativistically since
> this is experimentally the case. An electron at 200GeV looks pretty much
> identical to an electron as it is (almost completely) transverse.
>
>
>
> However if you consider that photons, light, and the possibility that we
> are made of light, may be the cause for relativity,
>
>
>
> True!
>
>
>
> it would imply classical, not relativistic velocity vectors should be used
> in understanding the velocities, geometries and topologies of the inherent
> fields.  Why?
>
>
>
> This would be nice in a way, and is good to think about, but that one can
> understand the "velocities" of fields using Euclidean vectors is just is
> not so. They transform properly relativistically, and it is vital to get
> this right or one is not modelling fields at all, but something else.
>
>
>
> We know that fields extend off to infinity, so it is reasonable to say
> then, that we know that there will be a form of interference at the center
> of this electron model.
>
>
>
> Yes in principle, but remember that most physical fields have a beginning
> and an end. The (radial) component of the electric field is zero outside
> the Hydrogen atom, since electron and photon have the same charge and both
> are, quantum mechanically, radially symmetric. The external field cancells
> precisely and teh Hydrogen atom is (as far as we know and can measure)
> exactly neutral. The (spherical harmonic) solution has this interference
> inbuilt to give what is observed.
>
>
>
> So this is not just fiddling with the numbers to make things fit, any more
> than the rest of our research, including field equations.
>
>
>
> It is true that the numbers are also important - but not at the cost of
> unphysical models.
>
>
>
> But I do understand your concern.
>
>
>
> I think that looking for specific solutions is better than settling for an
> electron model which does not produce the correct experimental properties.
>
>
>
> Agreed!
>
>
>
> Of course one of our goals is to find as much cause and effect as we can,
> so that we can sharpen our understanding of the universe.  What I see, is
> that it is possible that light, if we assume that we are made of light, is
> the cause for relativity.
>
>
>
> Agreed!
>
>
>
> This then requires a specific interpretation of relativity, a definition
> of relativity based on that cause and effect.
>
>
>
> Agreed here too.
>
>
>
>   In this matter my opinion more parallels that of John D.
>
> One repercussion of that approach is that velocity vectors for the
> internal topology of photons would be classical and not relativistic.
>
>
>
> I just do not get why you think this must be the case
>
>
>
> I think relativity is difficult to understand and take fully on board -
> but it is not impossible. the key feature is that the speed of light is
> given by the division of one part of a proper vector with another part of
> the SAME vector. These things are simply not independent, any more that
> the "up" diameter of a circle is independent of the "sideways" diameter of
> a circle. The discussion sounds to me like one about defining circles with
> different diameters in different directions. These are just not circles -
> they are ellipses. We cannot make the physical car work well with
> ellipsoidal wheels.
>
>
>
> Of course this does not agree with your proposal for “absolute
> relativity”.  But I am not yet willing to dismiss the notion that light is
> the cause for relativity and time, principally because there are too many
> factors suggesting it may be the correct approach. I think that our
> observation of relativity in nature is created simply by light having a
> finite velocity, and everything being made of light.
>
>
>
> Light does not really have a finite velocity - it has a limiting velocity
> and this is not the same thing. One can accelerate a particle or a photon
> infinitely (by batting it back and forth between two mirrors for example).
> The momentum increases without limit. It is just that space and time are
> not independent of each other. You need to get this!
>
>
>
> So, in that context, these numbers, like the Sqrt(2) c, are not just
> picked, but are specifically required.
>
>
>
> No they are not . they come form the relationship between total angular
> momentum and a component of angular momentum in QM - which comes from the
> properties of the group describing this, as described in big textbooks on
> quantum spin such as Eisberg. This is, at the simplest level a property of
> SU(2).
>
>
>
> I will not attempt to convince you that you are viewing relativity
> incorrectly, because I want to see where each perspective leads us, but at
> some point in the future I may attempt to convince you, depending on how
> several issues turn out.
>
>
>
> I am often wrong, and nearly always ignorant - so this may well happen!
> you may not believe this but I love it when it does! As my ignorance with
> John M just now and my error with David a few days ago (sorry guys!).
>
>
>
> If we stay with the absolute relativistic approach, and use c and only c
> in all our calculations, we are stuck with charge that is less than the
> elementary charge.  Electrons are not constrained in that way.  So we
> probably should look at the possibilities.
>
>
>
> This is simply not so. All ones needs is that the minor axis is a few
> percent of the major axis and one gets the precise charge. Let the light
> form its own epsilon cavity - right charge. One does not need to look at
> non-relativistic or tachyonic velocities - though these are one possibility.
>
>
>
> And I want to thank you John for your thoughts and comments.  I always
> appreciate and consider your perspective.
>
>
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> Regards, right back.
>
>
>
> I thoroughly appreciate your intelligence, your diligence in checking the
> details, your superb modelling skills and your absolute integrity in
> defending your view of things. I have already learned a lot from you
> -especially about those aspects that cause difficulty even for intelligent,
> highly educated, well-wishing folk. Thank you too!
>
>
>
> John W.
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *John Williamson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2015 12:04 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
>
>
> Dear Richard and Chip.
>
> I worry a little that if you have "knob to turn" to get the electron
> charge - this does not get you the charge. Merely the fact that your model
> contains a degree of freedom not fixed by the physics. This is one of the
> real problems for QED, for example, that you do not get the charge, but
> have to put it in by hand. Worse, how big you have to make it depends on
> how far you take your perturbation expansion, so it is effectively
> (negative) infinite. You then divide out the huge number you generate in
> the expansion, to get precisely the charge observed, then all your numbers
> make sense. Similar problem in QED with the mass.
>
> In Richards charge-photon model, likewise, one can pour in (or out) just
> as much continuous charge as you like to get the electron charge. This
> simply removes the possibility of predicting the charge, in my view. Not a
> problem for pysics at it stands as it cannot predict the charge either, but
> where is the progress?
>
> What you are doing, Chip, sounds more interesting in that the sqrt(2) is a
> proper number (though I calculate that it is a little larger, and less
> close percentage-wise than if one simply takes c for the variation on r
> alone) - so the number is still out. Problem I have here is that
> relativistic velocities simply do not add vectorially. c-0.999c = c.
> One should indeed try other things though ... such as the possibility that
> not all of the initial field ends up in field or charge (is this what you
> mean by efficiency - or is it direction and cancellation?). This can be
> fruitful, but the configuration must fix itself precisely and not be put in
> as knob-number.
>
> Ho hum. Does not mean one should not think about these things, of course.
> I just think that one should not divert attention from the kernel of
> thinking in pursuit of mere numbers.
>
> As I said before, one can easily tune the charge by changing the ration of
> major to minor axes in Martin and my model to get the exact charge, but
> properly one should also account for field component cancellations then
> (which is what ,I think, Chip may be referring to as the "efficiency"
> (please correct me if I am wrong!). Equally, one can change it by changing
> its confinement envelope from spherical to more oval. Or by postulating a
> slightly lower velocity than c. or by making it square rather than round or
> .... lots of things (but why?)
>
> Anyway regards to all, and have fun!
>
> 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:* Monday, June 15, 2015 10:31 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> Hi Chip,
>
>    I’m not sure what you mean by the "efficiency of the field” or “the
> “efficiency of the charge field” and are these the same thing? Since other
> particles like the muon and tau also have the same electric charge as the
> electron, I don’t see why 0.511MeV is important in calculating the charge
> of the electron. It sounds very interesting though if you can demonstrate
> this result quantitatively.
>
>       Richard
>
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Richard
>
>
>
> I have a thought experiment for you.
>
>
>
> For a moment let us imagine that your “charged photon” is comprised of
> fields.  Let us assume that these fields are fundamental and quantized and
> are what makes up your charged photon.  Then let us start with these
> fields, at the intensity they have in a .511Mev photon, instead of starting
> with the value –e.
>
> Now let us allow for the Sqrt(2) Ro radius and the Sqrt(2) c velocity.  We
> now have a total charge a bit larger than –e and a magnetic moment very
> close to the measured magnetic moment of the electron.
>
>
>
> Now let us consider forms of “field interference” at the center of the
> model.  Any form of field interference is occurring in the positive portion
> of the field near the center, reducing the efficiency of the field, and has
> the effect of making the effective electrical radius appear larger than the
> actual transport radius.  It also has the effect of reducing the efficiency
> of the charge field.
>
>
>
> With such a model we are able to arrive at the experimentally observed
> charge and magnetic moment.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
>  *On Behalf Of *Richard Gauthier
> *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2015 8:39 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
>
>
> Hi Chip,
>
>
>
>     To remind you and others, my transluminal energy quantum spin 1 hbar
> photon model has a point-like energy quantum that circulates at sqrt(2) c
> in a open helical path of forward angle 45 degrees and carries energy E=hf
> and longitudinal momentum p=h/lambda (where lambda is the pitch of the
> helical trajectory and f is the looping frequency of the energy quantum
> going along its helical trajectory), and has a helical radius of
> R=lambda/2pi and a spin of 1hbar. The uncharged spin 1/2 photon model would
> make two loops rather than 1 per photon wavelength and have a helical
> radius of lambda/4pi rather than lambda/2pi, but the energy quantum would
> still move at sqrt(2) c and also have a forward helical angle of 45
> degrees. In my original energy quantum resting electron model the energy
> quantum is charged -e and the axis of the energy quantum’s helical
> trajectory is closed in a double-loop whose radius is Ro=hbar/2mc. The
> resting electron model contains both the electron’s Compton frequency
> mc^2/h and its zitterbewegung frequency 2mc^2/h due to the double-looping.
> The helical radius of the helically circulating charged energy quantum
> around this closed trajectory is set to Ro sqrt(2)  to give the resting
> electron model the Dirac magnetic moment of the electron of 1 Bohr
> magneton. Because of the closed helical motion of the charged energy
> quantum, its speed ranges from 0.707c to 2.516c per closed cycle, so it
> does not have a constant speed like in the open photon model. So I have not
> done any calculations of the magnetic moment of my resting electron model
> for an energy quantum that moves at a constant sqrt(2) c.
>
>
>
>    Richard
>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Richard
>
>
>
> Interesting.  I have also been thinking about an electron model comprised
> of multiple wavelengths of the circulating photon.  One implication is that
> each wavelength would be forced to take a different path due to the
> repulsion of the electric fields causing a separation between them, making
> the model far more spherical and less planar than my model.  It raises some
> interesting new problems but I think it is worth modeling to see what the
> results will be.
>
>
>
> I want to reread your email a few time to make sure I am understanding
> your suggestions thoroughly.
>
>
>
> Have you computed the magnetic moment for such an electron model with the
> velocity<image004.png>, and the radius slightly larger due to this velocity
> and the resultant total wavelength increase (2.73055834982988E-13 m)? (This
> would be the total wavelength for the photon with the velocity <image005.png>divided
> by<image006.png>)
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
>  *On Behalf Of *Richard Gauthier
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 14, 2015 6:54 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
>
>
> Hi Chip,
>
>
>
>  I’ve been thinking about the possible structure of a charged photon
> forming an electron, a bit like your model. A simple (though surely not
> completely correct) charged-photon model for a double-looping-photon
> resting electron is for the electron’s charge -e to be spread out uniformly
> along a thin curved line segment of length 1 Compton wavelength Lcomp=h/mc
> along the trajectory of the charged photon, and curving into a double-loop
> of radius Ro=hbar/2mc. This double-looping charge segment would circulate
> at light-speed with the charged photon. The electric field lines produced
> by the circulating charged photon would all end on the charged trajectory
> of the charged photon, while the magnetic field lines would form a magnetic
> dipole with its magnetic field going through and around the light-speed
> double-looping charge segment.
>
>
>
> We know that such a charged-double-loop model of the resting electron
> generates a magnetic moment of only 1/2 Bohr magneton (half of that
> required for a Dirac electron) so modifications of this basic model would
> be necessary, also to provide a spin of 1/2 hbar to the circulating charged
> photon, which would give a spin of 1/2 hbar to a relativistically moving
> electron. The double-loop is the trajectory of the circulating charged
> photon in a resting electron. The actual length of the charged photon
> composing an electron model could be  say N Compton wavelengths instead of
> one, and the same charge -e would be spread out in a curved line segment
> having a length of N Compton wavelengths along the trajectory of the
> charged photon. In a resting electron the wrapped-up N-wavelength charged
> photon would look like the wrapped up double-loop
> 1-Compton-wavelength-photon electron model. As seen by a moving observer
> however, the circulating electric charge in the N-wavelength charged photon
> model would move at light-speed with the charged photon in a helical
> trajectory with the geometry of the charged photon’s trajectory given in my
> article “The electron is a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength.”
> The wavelengths of the charged photon would be contracted by a factor of
> gamma along the helical trajectory, while the radius of the helical
> trajectory would be contracted to Ro/(gamma^2). The charged photon would
> resemble a charged water snake moving along a helical path. The helically
> moving charged photon would look like it was stuck with many spears due to
> the transverse light-speed electric field lines ending on the
> helically-moving light-speed charge segment, while the magnetic field lines
> would form closed paths about the helically moving charge segment and also
> move at light speed next to the helical trajectory, modeling the electron
> moving forward at sub-light speed.
>
>
>
>     Richard
>
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi John D
>
>
>
> Thanks again.  I will try modeling the waves from that approach. I think I
> will wind up using Maxwell’s analogy of an elastic medium for the base of
> the model.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
>  *On Behalf Of *John Duffield
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:20 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
>
>
> *John:*
>
>
>
> *The waves interact like ocean waves interact. Imagine an ocean wave, then
> imagine another ocean wave that rides over it. Whilst it does this, it
> changes direction. First one way, then the other. Then when it’s ridden
> over it, it continues on its way. It looks like it didn’t interact, but it
> did. It didn’t go through it, it went over it, it changed direction. A wave
> makes a wave change direction. And if it does it enough so that the wave
> encounters itself, it changes its own direction, and keeps on doing so.
> That’s why you need the double loop. Light is alternating **displacement
> current*
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current#History_and_interpretation>*,
> which is why we have vacuum impedance, and displacement current does what
> it says on the can. Check out the **Breit-Wheeler process*
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit%E2%80%93Wheeler_process> *on
> Wikipedia and google **hohlraum Imperial*
> <https://www.google.co.uk/#tbm=nws&q=hohlraum+imperial>*. As for the
> Wikipedia two-photon physics article, check this out:*
>
>
>
> “From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple
> directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact
> through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the
> uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion–antifermion pair,
> to either of which the other photon can couple”.
>
>
>
> *Note how according to this cargo-cult explanation, pair production occurs
> because pair production occurs? Spontaneously? Like worms from mud? It’s
> garbage. A 511keV photon does not spend its pretty little life morphing
> into a 511keV electron and a 511keV positron which somehow morph back into
> a single 511keV photon which nevertheless manages to keep on propagating at
> c. There’s such a thing as conservation of energy and conservation of
> momentum. And photons interact with photons, end of story. Something like
> this:*
>
>
>
> <image001.png>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Chip:*
>
>
>
> *I don’t think there’s a problem. Try modelling a little wave riding over
> a big wave. Watch it change direction as it rides up, then down. Then make
> it bigger. The 80TeV isn’t to do with the properties of space, it’s to do
> with the CMB. The factor for creating electrons from photons is h, wherein
> action is momentum x distance, and the amplitude is a distance that’s
> always the same like when you pluck your guitar. To make an electron and a
> positron you want two photons  with a wavelength that is 2π times the
> amplitude. IMHO the “spin catalyst” you’re looking for is nothing
> mysterious, look at the red dots **here*
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deep_water_wave.gif>*. As for
> nuclei, check out proton-anti proton annihilation to gamma photons. An
> electron is a photon going round and round. A proton is a photon going
> round and round and round.  In the end, meh, it’s just another
> photon-photon interaction. *
>
>
>
> *<image002.gif>*
>
>
>
> *Regards*
>
> *JohnD*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> ] *On Behalf Of *John Williamson
> *Sent:* 11 June 2015 08:48
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
>
>
> Dear John D,
>
> That would be kind of nice if it did but, experimentally, it does not.
>
> If you take a cavity and put an electromagnetic wave in it such that you
> can shine another test photon source ( a laser for example) through the
> other wave in a region of near vacuum (air will do!) the test light is not
> affected a bit. Not one bit. Not at all. It is completely linear. The waves
> do not inter-act with one another. At least until you get up to the
> pair-creation threshold. This is NIW (non interference of waves). It is
> only if light effects some medium that the medium interacts with the light.
> You can understand this if photons obey the Maxwell equations (and they do
> this very well indeed-even better than the fact that they are photons at
> all) because the Maxwell equations are linear. You need non-linearities to
> see some effect.
>
> Once one gets up to really high energies photons do begin to inter-act via
> the pair creation mechanism, through the so-called Feynman box diagram see
> for example ..
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
>
> and there is, indeed, a threshold for cosmic gammas of roughly 80TeV -
> since at these energies they interact with CMB photons at a centre of mass
> energy sufficient to pair-create.
>
> Cheers, John W.
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* General [
> general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 8:22 AM
> *To:* 'David Mathes'; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> *David:*
>
>
>
> *I think it’s simpler than you think. A photon is a wave in space. Space
> waves. And where space waves, space is curved. So another photon moving
> through this space follows a curved path. So curved that it ends up
> encountering itself, and moving through itself. Then its path is so curved
> that its closed. *
>
>
>
> *The other photon is similarly affected, and we call it gamma-gamma pair
> production. *
>
>
>
> *Regards*
>
> *John D*
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> ] *On Behalf Of *David Mathes
> *Sent:* 10 June 2015 07:56
> *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
>
>
>
> *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*
> <http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm>*. 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*
> <http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/> *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
> <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
> <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
> <http://www.researchgate.net/publication/273419950_Light_is_Heavy> . 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
> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/68152826/On-Vortex-Particles-Fiasco-Press-Journal-of-Swarm-Scholarship#scribd>
>  by David St John. They ain’t called spinors for nothing!
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Confinement>, 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
> <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
> <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22neither%20homogeneous%22>
>  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
> <http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html>, 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
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy>.
> 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
> <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/galaxy_sized_twist/>.
> 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
> <http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/time-explained-t3.html> and A
> World Without Time: the forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein
> <http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942>
> .
>
>
>
> 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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65335/how-do-moving-charges-produce-magnetic-fields>,
> but IMHO that’s a fairy tale, and I prefer a “screw” answer
> <http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184055/atomic-explanation-of-magnetic-field/184079?noredirect=1#comment388570_184079>.
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> John D
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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 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>
>
>
>
>
> <image004.png><image001.png><image001.png><image004.png><image006.png><image006.png><image003.png><image003.png><image005.png><image005.png><image002.png><image002.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 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>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150618/a49ae598/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16864 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150618/a49ae598/attachment-0001.png>