[General] double-loop electron model discussion

[Chip Akins]

Hi Richard

 

To answer your questions regarding my electron model


 

Richard Wrote: “What is the spin of the circulating photon with toroidal
topology in your model? Is it spin 1 hbar even though your electron model
has spin 1/2 hbar? If so, is this spin 1 hbar of your electron model’s
photon observable? If not, in what sense does this circulating photon have
spin 1 hbar?”

 

In my model the spin of the photon itself, when confined, is changed, and
becomes the spin of the electron. My model uses a circular plane wave model
for the confined photon. There is no required toroidal topology in the
model, but certain toroidal topologies (if defined correctly) may work just
as well. The hbar spin of the photon creates a velocity vector, the square
root of 2 times c.  This is the circulation velocity of the photon confined
in the electron with a spin of ½ hbar. The new R0 transport radius, for the
electron is then 2.73055834982988E-13m.  When field interference at the
center of rotation is accounted for, the effective electromagnetic radius is
larger than the transport radius, so that the effective EM radius is
1.001159601916102 times larger than the transport radius. This yields the
exact values for charge and magnetic moment of the electron.

Without including this velocity correction to the fields we cannot obtain
enough “charge” to get the actual value of e, the elementary charge, so this
is a critical point. If we keep the velocity c, for the internal circulation
velocity in a double looped electron model which generated topological
charge, we either wind up with a magnetic moment anomaly, or with
insufficient charge.

 

Richard Wrote: “Does the circulating photon with toroidal topology move
along a helical trajectory when the electron model has velocity v
perpendicular to the plane of its circulating photon’s closed circle
trajectory when at rest? If so, does the radius of this helical trajectory
continue to be hbar/2mc (the same as for your resting electron model) as the
electron model's speed increases, or does the radius of this helical
trajectory change with electron speed  by some factor? Does the circulating
photon’s frequency of circulation increase in proportion to the total energy
E=gamma mc^2 of the electron? If so, does the circulating photon's
wavelength correspondingly decrease inversely proportional to gamma?  If
not, how does the photon’s frequency depend on the electron model’s
velocity?”

 

My electron model, when accelerated, is described by:

 

Electron energy 

Photon frequency  = Electron Frequency 

Photon wavelength 

Transport radius 

 

Where  is Lorentz correction,  is the square root of 2 times c.

 

So with acceleration the energy increases, frequency increases, radius
decreases, etc.

 

Are there portions of these items which I have failed to make clear in the
paper?  Not always the best at communication some of the detail.

 

Chip

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:34 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

Chip, 

   Could you please also answer the short questions below about your
electron model, that I put to John and Martin about their electron model.
This might turn into a small survey about features in common or different
among the various photon-based models of the electron.Thanks.

   By the way, I learned that Martin Rivas who also has a Dirac related
electron model is following me on ResearchGate. John W. knows his work also.
Rivas has a speed-of-light trajectory of a helically circulating point
charge in his electron model.

       Richard

 

On Mar 8, 2015, at 8:23 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> > wrote:

 

John and Martin,

   I have a few basic questions about your electron model that I don’t think
are answered in your paper. Short answers are OK, if possible. Longer
answers or explanations are welcome.

My first set of questions: What is the spin of the circulating photon with
toroidal topology in your model? Is it spin 1 hbar even though your electron
model has spin 1/2 hbar? If so, is this spin 1 hbar of your electron model’s
photon observable? If not, in what sense does this circulating photon have
spin 1 hbar?

   My second set of questions: Does the circulating photon with toroidal
topology move along a helical trajectory when the electron model has
velocity v perpendicular to the plane of its circulating photon’s closed
circle trajectory when at rest? If so, does the radius of this helical
trajectory continue to be hbar/2mc (the same as for your resting electron
model) as the electron model's speed increases, or does the radius of this
helical trajectory change with electron speed  by some factor? Does the
circulating photon’s frequency of circulation increase in proportion to the
total energy E=gamma mc^2 of the electron? If so, does the circulating
photon's wavelength correspondingly decrease inversely proportional to
gamma?  If not, how does the photon’s frequency depend on the electron
model’s velocity?

    with warm regards,

          Richard

    

 

On Mar 7, 2015, at 4:43 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> > wrote:

 

John:

 

Not good. I’m afraid there’s a lot more censorship around than people
appreciate. 

 

By the way,  the phony side of particle physics
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Fiction-Phony-Particle-Physics/dp/188882081
0/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1425732021&sr=1-1>  was interesting
reading. 

 

Regards

John

 

 

From: John Williamson <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> 

Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 6:06 AM

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 

Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

Hihi .. look what I just got from arxiv ...

arXiv Moderation [moderation at arxiv.org <mailto:moderation at arxiv.org> ]



Actions

To:

 John Williamson 

 

Friday, March 06, 2015 7:24 PM

Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators, who
determined it inappropriate for arXiv.  Our moderators suggest that you
please send your paper to a conventional journal instead.  

Please do not resubmit this paper without contacting moderation for
permission, and obtaining a positive response.  Resubmission of removed
papers may result in suspension of submission privileges.

For more information on our moderation policies see:

   http://arxiv.org/help/moderation

--
arXiv moderation

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org
<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org> ] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> ]
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 6:03 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

Good for you Richard,

That is a very good starting point for discussion. The reason Dirac did not
model the electron as a charged object, however, was that he was aware that
this would produce problems for a light- speed object, not that he missed
something. Photons are not charged - this is (for me) part of the essential
difference between photons and electrons (the other is the fermionic
aspect). This needs to come out of a proper theory, or model, not be put in
a-priori. While I am proud of Martin and my old model (in that it both
derives charge and half-integral spin), it is by no means the whole story
two decades later. I think it is unproductive to argue too much about what
the old models do or do not mean. The electron is no more, simply, a
localised photon, than the photon is a pure overlap state of a couple of
electrons. We need to develop the new theory to explain both photon and
electron from first principles, deriving both charge and fermions from
bosons - and explaining why the basic fermions can carry charge, whereas
(the W's notwithstanding) wheres the rest-massless boson does not. I do not
think the W or the Z are "fundamental" either, but their properties should
(equally) emerge from the proper theory that Martin and I are working on. 

Also the statements of Hestenes and Rivas, are not "results" in the
experimental sense, but theoretical speculations. They cannot and must not
be taken as god given. I'm hoping to write a proper explanation of some of
the seminal experiments on the experimental point properties of the electron
later this weekend. I was lucky enough to have been the actual person who
carried out (two sets of the actual) seminal experiments on this decades
ago. It is about time I explained it properly with the  references - and
hope to have a go at this within this discussion forum if I can muster the
time or energy to make a proper job of it.

Regards, John.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org
<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org> ] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> ]
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 5:42 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

Hi John W., Martin, Andrew and others,

 

   I think that the present company can mostly agree about one feature
common to our various electron models — they are composed in some way of a
double-looping photon of basic radius hbar/2mc, which is the Compton
wavelength h/mc divided by 4pi . This is also the characteristic vibrational
amplitude of the electron found from the Dirac equation. So I think we’re on
firm ground with our electron models here (though we are a small group). But
then differences are seen when we discuss the nature and location of the
electric charge of an electron.

 

    I think we need to keep in mind that Dirac claimed, based on his
equation and successful experimental predictions from his equation, that the
electron travels at light speed, although he says its observable velocity is
always less that light speed. The same could apply to the electron’s charge.
Hestenes and Rivas in separate analyses of the Dirac equation found that the
electron can be modeled as a light speed electric charge moving in a helical
trajectory of radius hbar/2mc. The electron’s “center of charge” rotates
around its “center of mass” at light speed, claims Rivas.  This is the case
even when the electron is at “rest” and the light-speed charge’s helical
path becomes a closed circular path. So John, when you say, as does Martin
similarly, that "Speed of light "charge" cannot happen, in this picture,
precisely because  of this frame-bound (rest-massive) form” you seem to be
going against these two Dirac-equation related analyses which have the
electron’s charge moving at light-speed even in a resting electron. How do
you explain this discrepency between your electron model and these results?

 

   Now Dirac did not claim that the electron is a helically-circulating
charged photon. Neither did de Broglie. Both had the opportunity to do so,
starting with de Broglie's E=mc^2=hf for the stationary electron.  In my
opinion, if either had, and had then derived the de Broglie wavelength from
this charged photon, this view would be commonly accepted as obvious today.
But for some reason there seems to have developed a collective “mental
block” among physicists, starting perhaps with de Broglie and persisting
until today, that the equation gamma mc^2=hf does NOT indicate that the
moving electron is a kind of photon, but rather that the electron is a
material object with a certain energy-related internal vibrational frequency
which increases in proportion to the total energy of the electron in a way
that, due to a “harmony of phases” leads to the de Broglie wavelength and
the idea of ‘matter-waves’. Perhaps this collective mental block or dogmatic
way of thinking about electrons had its origin in Planck’s endowing his
proposed material oscillators in the walls of a blackbody’s cavity with
energies having integral multiples of hf. There is now also a kind of dogma
that photons have to have spin 1, so that the idea that the electron can be
a variety of photon with spin 1/2 is dismissed as impossible or
inconceivable, even laughable as a kind of logical contradiction, if it
presents itself to mind at all. All of this is understandable. New ideas in
physics are not easily accepted, and rightly so. Dogmas, especially when
they may have served some useful purpose in the past, die hard.

 

   But I digress. Whether the electron’s charge moves at sub-light speed or
at light speed can be a point of reasonable disagreement. But the various
proposals that the electron is a double-looping photon with its effective
charge at the center of the loop (Williamson and van der Mark), a
double-looping light-speed electric charge (Hestenes, Rivas) or a
double-looping charged photon, all perhaps can claim at least some rational
support and could therefore form the basis for a common presentation about
the nature of the electron in relation to the photon.

 

     with best regards,

         Richard

 

On Mar 6, 2015, at 12:26 AM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> > wrote:

 

Agreed Andrew,

We need to realise that we are all "ignorant" in certain respects - and
indeed that "science" is also , presently, completely ignorant in certain
respects. We need to break this cycle of ignorance. We need the picture to
make sense in science as a whole. If we (I hope!) come up with a complete
picture,  it must be right everywhere and only just right - explaining,
amongst other things- both the nature of and reason for quantisation and the
nature of charge.

In the paper I aim to present I hope to argue that one can start from an
underlying picture of continuous fields, show how and why these must be
quantised and then use that quantised (E=hf) object to show why and how the
(quantised) electron charge arises. In that sense I would say that I then
"know" what charge is - in terms of the deeper set of principles used to
describe it in terms of that theory.  Others may say that, within QED charge
is that thing which emits and absorbs photons, the carriers of the
electromagnetic force and may claim, therefore to "understand" what charge
is. In my view, there is a big difference between putting charge in a-priori
and understanding what it is. Likewise, in the Maxwell equations the
"charge" is understood simply as the electric field divergence. This then
begs the question of the nature of the charge. The fact that it is defined
here as a divergence means that it must have a form related to a particular
frame - just as Martin says. Speed of light "charge" cannot happen, in this
picture, precisely because  of this frame-bound (rest-massive) form. 

In our 1997 paper, we put in (a subset of) the experimental properties of
the (uncharged) photon and got out an estimate of the charge. We demanded a
set of non-crossing, precisely lightspeed, paths.  It was these starting
points that led to the properties we derived. The charge arose in this model
because the oscillating (a.c) photon field was re-configured to give a
(d.c.) radial component. That re-configuration (a knotting) required an
equal and opposite re-configuration an (antiknot) to give a detailed, smooth
transition from cartesian (corkscrew -zero divergence) to toroidal (positive
and negative radial) co-ordinates. The half integral spin to what John D
calls the Dirac belt trick. The anomalous magnetic moment calculation to a
rigorous demand that all paths have the same phase length, and be precisely
lightspeed. That article is history though. Still good, I think, in terms of
its starting postulates, but we need to move on to a deeper theory that
gives BOTH electron AND photon solutions from an underlying theory.

As we talk about this I see many holes and fallacies in what others are
saying, I'm expecting (and hoping!), to be challenged on my own areas of
ignorance. This is best done on proper, carefully argued papers, not loose
emails with half-understood starting points derived from other authority.

It is through interaction and proper discussion that ignorance can be
resolved. 

Regards, John.



  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org
<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org> ] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com
<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> ]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 7:19 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: P.G. Vaidya
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

Dear Richard,

While I agree with Martin, I think that we will need to discuss the issue in
person to iron out the pros & cons. I am presenting a paper at the
conference on the fields & potentials of an optical standing wave. It will
describe the differences between photonic 'charge' within the photon and
point charges. I will probably be using your paper as one of the several
references that talk of charge within a photon.

When we all have had time to read each others' papers (hopefully before
gathering at the conference), then we will be better able to understand our
respective positions and integrate the information into a coherent,
self-consistent, mutually acceptable, whole. I would like the actual
presentations from the multiple sources to present a complete picture, not
the repetitive fragments with the contradictions that presently exist..

Andrew

 

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> > wrote:



Hello Martin, 

    Thank you for your thoughtful comments and questions. You are right that
any complete model of the electron would include the origin of electric
charge. No one currently understands the nature and origin of electric
charge—that’s why there are various models of the electron. To say that
electric charge originates with electric fields that have a non-zero
divergence is to imply that we understand the origin of electromagnetic
fields, which are supposed to be generated by accelerated electric charges!
A full circle of deep ignorance as the the nature of either. It seems clear
to me that both electric charge and electromagnetic fields originate from
something more primary and more fundamental than either. I call this more
fundamental entity an energy quantum. It generates both electric charge and
electromagnetic fields, as well as other physical properties of quantized
particles. Its chief characteristic is its energy which is proportional to
its frequency: E=hf. It takes on other properties such as the speed of
light, wavelength, momentum, spin, magnetic moment, flavor, color charge etc
depending on what physical particle such as the photon, electron, gluon,
quark etc that it expresses itself as. The energy quantum expresses
non-locally through the various particles that it manifests as such as the
photon or the electron.

    So I don’t think that the electric charge has to be point-like. I do
think that the energy quantum, which is not inherently charged, is likely to
be point-like. It generates the electron which has all the electron's
enigmatic properties. I think that if the energy quantum was better
understood as a hypothetical fundamental entity, the quantum properties of
the so-called fundamental particles would become less enigmatic. So the
electron may be a charged photon, but a photon is an energy quantum
expressing as an uncharged photon or as a charged photon (electron). In your
and John's model of the electron, electric charge must travel at less than
the speed of light, but in my model of the electron as a charged photon,
electric charge can travel at light speed and perhaps faster. Neither of our
models is proved to the extent that either of them can claim factually that
electric charge can or cannot travel at the speed of light or even faster
than light. That’s for experiment to decide. But we can ask how our models
can lead to a deeper understanding of matter and energy.

     with best regards,

            Richard

    

On Mar 4, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Mark, Martin van der
<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >
wrote:

 

Oh Richard, maybe the main thing is:

Why put charge in your model to begin with? Wouldn’t it be nice to have it
as a consequence? The charge itself is the whole problem to begin with


The motivation just puzzles me
.

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.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: woensdag 4 maart 2015 16:56
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

Hi Richard, thank you,

Firstly, There are 3 intimately related problems. With the self-energy
problem comes the 4/3 problem and that of the Poincare stresses. See chapter
28 VOL II of the Feynman Lectures. Neither has to do with the electron being
a point. (go back and  make sure you read that previous sentence well) When
the electron is taken to be smaller than half the classical radius, it is
already the end of physics,  because there is more energy in the electric
field outside than there is mass to begin with. 

Secondly, a charged object whatever you call it and whatever its size cannot
go at light velocity. It may approach it, but not reach it. Charge means a
special configuration of field, of the sort that has a non-zero divergence,
field sticks out in all directions. These things, really inescapably, MUST
have a so-called “rest” mass, if only from the point of view of what
radiation is about: the transverse part, and what virtual photons,
longitudinal polarization or near-field optics are about: mass given by
their decay length.

I hope this is clear enough. “Charged photon” is a crippled name, it suggest
a contradiction that I believe (I can be quite wrong, but now you know where
it comes from) is also part of the whole concept described and in my opinion
cannot be married with physics as it stands or with physics as it (perhaps)
will appear to be.

Very best, 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.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: woensdag 4 maart 2015 16:19
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

Martin,

   I agree. The electron’s quantum existence has a unity that must be
preserved in any electron model, although I would like to hear why this must
be in your opinion.

   The charged photon model of the electron does not require that the charge
of the charged photon (i.e. the electron) is a point charge. What we know
about the electron is that when it is detected it displays point-like
behavior, so at that time the charge as well as the location of the detected
electron is point-like (or at least confined within the particular region of
detection of the electron.) The same goes for a photon. We cannot say that
the photon is point-like when it is traveling undetected through a double
slit apparatus, which an electron can do also. As the electron/charged
photon goes through the double slits, its charge goes through the double
slits also, as does its spin and magnetic moment (or at least the electron's
potential for re-expressing all of these properties when it is later
detected after passing wavelike through both slits.) The photon is only
point-like when it is detected. So the electron and the photon are very
similar in this respect, both showing wave-particle duality. I’m claiming
that this wave-particle duality property (or Feynman's sum-over-histories
property if you don’t like wave-particle duality) of a photon and an
electron is essentially the same because the electron is a charged photon
and has the properties of a photon like wave-particle duality, interference,
diffraction, and entanglement. But I also claim that the term “matter-waves”
is less meaningful for an electron if an electron is a charged photon and is
not really “matter” at all, unless an uncharged photon is also “matter”. In
this view, the term “matter” and “material” are not really relevant to the
physicist except as various expressions of energy, if matter is really light
or other luminous objects like gluons of various frequencies, conformations,
and levels of confinement.

   The charged photon model only requires that the charged photon have the
quantum and wave properties of the photon given by E=hf , p=h/lambda and
c=lambda f , which by the way are present in your photon with toroidal
topology as I understand it. The charged photon carries the charge -e for an
electron and +e for the charged photon which is a positron. The light-speed
of the electron (which I call a charged photon) is currently unobserved (as
Dirac remarked) but this doesn’t mean that this light speed is not part of
the electron/charged photon model, since the charged photon model of the
electron generates the de Broglie wavelength which IS  observed and is based
on a) a helically circulating light-speed charged photon, b) the increasing
frequency of the light-speed charged photon with increasing electron total
energy, and c) the corresponding decrease of wavelength of the light-speed
charged photon with increasing electron total energy. Since your toroidal
electron model has these photon properties, it will also generate the de
Broglie wavelength as does the charged photon model when your electron model
has a velocity in the direction perpendicular to the plane of its helical
axis. So your electron model will generate the de Broglie wavelength in 2
ways — the way you describe in your and John’s article and in this way as
well.

   So I am not attached to the electron as charged photon model as having a
point-like electric charge just as I am not attached to an uncharged photon
model being point-like. The supposed point-like charge of an electron as
leading to unwanted infinities has been a headache to physicists for a long
time. Perhaps a new approach is needed.

   

On Mar 3, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Mark, Martin van der <
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
wrote:

 

Hi Chip, clearly what John and I have written is too compact to give a full
explanation and it should not have been a surprise to me that the subtleties
do not always immediately sink in with the reader. 
Perhaps there will be time in at the conference to sit together and discuss
the physics, like why, on firm experimental grounds, it absolutely imposible
that the electron consists of two parts. It is a very puzzling one, and why
the narrowest possible escape may be just, and only just, sufficient: that
it is a single quantum of electromagnetic field with a non trivial topplogy.
And why any extra property put in from the beginning will destroy the whole
concept. Emerging properties should be: charge, spin, magnetic moment, de
broglie wavelength, Pauli principle, etc. 
Really the only thing i do not have too much of a clue about is the mass
scale...our model is at least not by itself capable of explaing it. This is
one of the things a real theory should provide!
Cheers, Martin
 
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
 
> Op 3 mrt. 2015 om 18:30 heeft "Chip Akins" < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
chipakins at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Hi Martin
> 
> I have read your 1997 paper many times and continue to refer to it during
research.
> 
> Rereading the Feynman Lectures II chapter 28 now.
> 
> I am fairly certain that my model, derived in part from yours, handles
these issues similarly, but adds some specifics for the electron you may be
interested in. If you have not read it please give it a look.
> 
> Chip
> 
> From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:23 AM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion
> 
> Hi Chip,
> John and I have dealt with it in our model. However, we can only be sure
if we can also develop a complete theory: a model is just and only a toy. A
very important toy to guide our thinking and to help us taking all aspects
on board.
> In our 1997 paper, we dealt with just about everything, except for:
> 
> ·         The Pauli principle (interference at same Compton frequency)
> 
> ·         The weak interaction (linked field lines)
> 
> ·         The strong interaction (knotted flow)
> Although after all these years I still feel that our model is very
adequate, perhaps the most important of our 1997 paper is that it explains
the problems related to certain properties of the electron.
> So read the paper and you will know a lot more about the physics involved.
And do read Chapter 28 VOL II of Feynman.
> Good luck,
> 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.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
> Sent: dinsdag 3 maart 2015 18:05
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion
> 
> Hi Martin
> 
> Thank you for the comments.
> 
> In your opinion does the model you and John W. created for the electron
(1997) satisfy this self-energy problem you mention?
> 
> I have read the Feynman lectures, but it has been a while, so time for a
review.
> 
> Infinities are quite distasteful, and an electron has spin and a magnetic
moment, so it can be argued that the electron cannot actually be a point,
even if it does react at a single point.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Chip
> 
> From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:40 AM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion
> 
> Hi Chip, Richard and Andrew,
> 
> 1)      Ever read chapter 28 of Vol. II of the Feynman Lectures?
> It is about the energy in the field of a charged object, like a football
that has been rubbed against a cat (as physicists do).
> That energy goes to infinity at smaller and smaller radius. This leads to
the self-energy problem for a small particle. (The invention of charged
photons doesn’t seem to do this any good)
> 
> 2)      The interaction of an electron is point-like, it means that it
consists of a single thing, not two massive parts bound by a force (because
that would vibrate at some energy)
> Any electron model must be able to make plausible why this is.
> Some thinking to do for you perhaps

> Best, 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.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
> Sent: dinsdag 3 maart 2015 17:10
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion
> 
> Hi Richard and Andrew
> 
> Andrew, I have been looking at the annihilation reaction of the electron
and positron and considering that the result yields two photons of the
energy 0.511MeV. Then assuming the electron and positron are each made of
one photon.
> So far, possibly due to my assumptions regarding the nature of a photon, I
have not been able to logically justify splitting the positive and negative
“portions’ of a single photon to create these two oppositely charged
particles. To me the positive and negative portions of the photon are really
made of the same thing, in that they are simply one field vector pointing
toward the positive. The positive and negative ends being part of the same
spacetime distortion.
> 
> I have attached an updated draft of the electron as a confined photon.
> 
> Chip
> 
> From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:08 AM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion
> 
> Hi Andrew,
>   That’s a very interesting view that a wormhole connection between a
created electron-positron pair could resolve the EPR paradox. I think that
you would need to show that the same wormhole explanation would resolve the
EPR paradox with other particles that are quantum mechanically entangled.
You would also need to show that the appropriate quantum communication
between two particles could pass between their connecting wormhole to keep
them entangled.
>    There are other sub-quantum hypotheses I suppose about how a photon
interacting with another photon or an atomic nucleus can create an electron
pair. Have you studied them and eliminated them as possible contenders?
> 
> On Mar 2, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <
<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> mules333 at gmail.com< <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Dear Richard, Chip, et al.,
> I thought for a long time about the electron as a self-bound photon,
before I realized that I could only make progress when I considered the
electron/positron pair as that photon. So, instead of a free photon (a
soliton) we must consider 2 self-bound solitons, that can be separated. It
was the paraphrased statement(s) from a molecular biologist (who read more
physics than I did) that started me on the right path. "Mass and charge are
only produced when (& as) the soliton pair are separated." This became the
basis of a paper that AJP rejected in 9 minutes from its electronic receipt.
However, with that identity of mass and charge in mind and with the
recognition of total internal reflection (TIR) as a means of binding light
in a "whispering-Gallery" mode, it became clear that the transverse electric
field of a bound photon could be 'rectified' by the Goos–Hänchen or
Imbert–Fedorov effect<
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect> of a photon and
give the net charge of an electron. This happens at a unique frequency and
orbit size where the negative phase shift exactly equals the phase advance
of the photon and the electric field can always point out. If the phase is
not correct, then the distortion of space (which affects the refractive
index of the path and thus the curvature of the photon) is not resonant.
However, this difference in curvature, balanced against the phase shift
gives a stable configuration.
> 
> That was the easy part. Nevertheless, I have not yet actually done the
full calculations. Someone of the group, with more mathematical ability than
I, could do so and coauthor my paper.
> My present conjecture:  What happens to the field confined inside the
bound-photon 'orbit'? It is so greatly concentrated by the path curvature
that it becomes 'singular' at the center. Nature 'abhors a singularity' even
more than it abhors a vacuum! The extreme energy density distorts space and
forms a 'connection' between the forming electron and positron. I believe
that the distortion is a wormhole and the connection is thru time. Just as
the external field lines of a bar magnet are 'closed' thru the bar, I
believe that the electric field lines of an electron/positron (the lepton)
pair in space, also form and are closed thru time via the wormhole. The
lepton pair remains connected (entangled) by this internal structure until
the wormhole 'distributes' among all of the neighboring charges. [I don't
believe that the wormhole collapses until a pair annihilates.] Since time
does not exist within a wormhole, this resolves the EPR paradox.
> In response to Richard's intent "I would like to start a thread that
focuses on comparing and contrasting the various double-loop electron models
... to find any common areas of agreement, and any points of difference."
> My original double-loop model assumed that every wavelength is divided in
1/2 and then recombined (nearly superposed). It required a different type of
phase shift than normally assumed and was nicely represented by the mobius
strip with a 1/2 twist per 1/2 cycle (a full rotation for every wavelength).
> My present concept, using the Goos–Hänchen or Imbert–Fedorov effect, does
not require a relationship between a 'twist' and the photon wavelength,
since the path curvature provides the necessary phase shift to keep the
fields constant. These options must still be confirmed.
> Thus, I have two models with different mobius twist factors. One with a
1/2 twist per 1/2 cycle, and one with no twist at all. I believe that both
models would allow the electron to be the lowest level and this structure
could have higher levels such as the muon. (However, I don't think that they
can be considered excited states.)
> Andrew
> _____________________________
> 
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Chip Akins < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
chipakins at gmail.com< <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Richard
> 
> One of the items which intrigued me while studying electron models, was
the notion that charge was topologically generated by the spin of the
electron.  We only find charge in spin 1/2 particles. Looking at U(1) and
SU(2) and the Yang-Mills "phase force" idea, led me to be even more
convinced.
> 
> As it turns out, it seems the photon is capable of generating charge
topologically, when confined. Of course the simplest method to express that
confinement is a monochromatic circular plane wave, certain toroidal models
may also work, as long as the negative end of the E field is exposed to the
outside.
> 
> Another attraction in starting with the plane circular model, is the
relative ease of analyzing wave interference.  It happens that wave
interference is very important, because the result is that the effective
electrical and magnetic radius is then slightly larger than the transport
radius, providing the exact values for the magnetic moment (with anomaly),
and the exact electric charge.  Wave interference occurs near the center of
the model, making the E field less efficient near the center, and thereby
shifting the effective E field radius, and therefore the effective magnetic
radius, outwards, while not affecting the transport radius.
> 
> With these values (magnetic moment and charge) defined so accurately in
the model, it is still a little puzzling that my models wave interference
predicts a value for the fine structure, internal to the electron, of
0.007285993718303 when the actual value (CODATA) is 0.0072973525698.  The
difference is 0.1557% but I still feel it is significant, and want to know
why the difference is there. Maybe I am calculating the interference
incorrectly or incompletely. Or maybe there is another contribution to the
fine structure which I have missed. While writing this I may have discovered
where my error is.  I kept telling myself that the fields actually extend
far beyond the effective RMS radius but falling off in intensity, and I
accounted for that in part of the wave interference calculations, but not
all of the interference was calculated, because I failed to see its tiny
contribution before now.
> 
> Another aspect of my model which is unique and not incorporated in any
other model we have seen is the relative phase of the electrical and
magnetic components of the wave.  This aspect becomes important when
understanding how the photon is confined.
> The electron exhibits many clues to its nature. From this model we can
calculate the exact known value for the Quantum Hall effect, by simply
running some standard electrical engineering formula using the "voltage",
"current", and frequency. This indicates also that an electrical engineering
analysis may provide other valuable information.  Using a similar approach
we can understand that the electron will display a particular phase
relationship between E and M components.  In a simple EM resonant system the
E and M components are shifted 90 degrees at resonance.  If we start with a
90 degree phase shift and  look at the double loop configuration of the wave
we see an apparent 180 degree phase shift in the confined E and M
components, placing them on opposite sides of the electron radius at any
given instant. Then it is much easier to see that with the E and M fields on
opposite sides, and the attraction between these fields, the issue of photon
confinement is simplified somewhat.
> 
> We still have a ways to go, getting answers to many of the remaining
questions.  But so far it seems like the group has uncovered some important
new understanding which may lead us to a clearer, causal, view of physics,
and provide a new basis which can describe experiment more fully and
accurately.
> 
> Chip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins
<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins> < <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Richard
Gauthier
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:47 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion
> 
> Hi Chip,
> 
>   Thank you for your thoughtful as well as personal history comments about
your interest in modeling the electron. My own interest in the structure and
composition of the electron dates back to the late 1980’s. My spiritual guru
gave some new ideas in 1986 about how matter might be formed by a kind of
life principle transmitted through subtle vibrating life-energy entities
that have both a mental and a physical portion. That idea intrigued me and
soon I tried to apply the idea to make a model of a photon as being composed
of millions of these oscillating life-particles. I had mainly my intuition
to guide me. My photon model soon contained a single circulating energy
entity (a superluminal energy quantum) traveling helically at a 45 degree
angle with the speed c sqrt(2) and a total momentum along a helical
trajectory of (h/lambda) sqrt(2). The energy quantum's helical radius is the
photon’s wavelength lambda divided by 2 pi. This result came out of the
requirement that the photon model should have its experimental value of spin
hbar (or minus hbar) generated by the transverse component of the
superluminal energy quantum's total momentum along its helical trajectory,
while having the transluminal energy quantum’s longitudinal component of
momentum be the photon's linear momentum p=h/lambda.
> 
>    I then modeled the electron as a closed charged photon-like object. I
knew very little about the Dirac equation except its prediction of
antimatter and that the electron has a 4pi rotational symmetry. I also found
that a single closed-loop of one wavelength of a photon (the Compton
wavelength h/mc) with the electron’s rest energy mc^2 yields a spin of 1
hbar — twice the value of the electron’s spin. It hit me that making a
double-loop of a single wavelength photon produces an electron model with a
spin of 1/2 hbar.
> 
>    While making my electron model I realized that it should also have the
electron’s magnetic moment M — approximately the magnitude of the Bohr
magneton (e hbar)/2m. I set the electron model to have the Bohr magneton for
its magnetic moment by adjusting the radius of the closed helical path of
the helically moving charged superluminal energy quantum so that its
helically circulating charge generates the Dirac equation electron's Bohr
magneton for the electron model. (Choosing a slightly larger helical radius
generates the electron’s exact experimental value of magnetic moment which
is a little larger than the Bohr magneton’s magnitude.)
> 
>    Later I started analyzing other people’s cyclical models of the
electron more closely. I found that Dirac had claimed that electrons
actually move at the speed of light, but that only a sub-luminal speed can
be observed. I found two analyses of the Dirac equation that suggested that
the path of a moving electron’s charge can be described as light-speed along
an open helix. This gave me the idea to fit my model of the circulating
charged photon for a resting electron to this light-speed helical approach.
I realized that the circulating photon in the electron model would have an
increased frequency f corresponding to its increased total energy gamma mc^2
when the electron moves forward, and that the corresponding wavelength of
this circulating charged photon would decrease with this increasing
frequency, in order to keep the speed of light of the circulating charged
photon constant. The radius of the charged photon’s helix was found to
decrease with increasing electron velocity by the factor gamma^2 in order
for the photon’s wavelength to decrease as described as the frequency of the
charged photon increases with increasing electron speed and total energy.
All the math worked out nicely, including the generation of the electron’s
spin 1/2 hbar for a slow moving electron from the tangential component mc of
the charged photon’s total momentum gamma mc along its helical axis,
multiplied by the radius hbar/2mc of the charged photon’s helical axis for a
slow moving electron. And I realized that any speed-of-light double-looping
photon model for an electron should also follow a corresponding helical path
whose radius decreases in the same way with the electron’s increase speed.
This is because the result only depends on the relations E=hf, p=h/lambda ,
and c= lambda f ,  the basic quantum energy and momentum equations for a
photon and the equation for wave motion with speed c.
> 
>     Although I knew that any acceptable electron model would have to
generate the relativistic de Broglie wavelength Ldb = h/(gamma mv) , I was
quite surprised that this result falls out so easily from the circulating
charged photon model of a moving electron, where the longitudinal component
of the circulating charged photon’s wave vector k yields the wave number
that corresponds to the relativistic de Broglie wavelength. Furthermore,
this simple result for the origin of the electron’s de Broglie wavelength
suggests that the quantum wave functions for a moving electron, which depend
heavily on the electron's de Broglie wavelength, are produced mathematically
from the waves generated by the circulating charged photon that models the
electron.
> 
>       Richard
> 
>> On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:47 AM, Chip Akins < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
chipakins at gmail.com< <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Richard and ALL
>> 
>> You asked for a comparison of electron models.
>> 
>> Since 1986, while having lunch with a mathematician, Eric Peterson, I
have felt that the electron was made up of EM waves, or a photon.
>> 
>> Several of us have come to the same conclusion.
>> 
>> When I saw your model from 2005 many things started to make sense.  That
is why I was so excited and interested to fully pursue the math to try to
deeply understand your TEQ model. It was quite informative and inspiring to
see your work.
>> 
>> Since that time, principally due to an Occam's razor argument, I have
returned to the view that TEQ's are not required to model the electron.
While I still feel that it may be possible that TEQ's exist, I do not find,
in my view, that it is required for the modeling of the photon and electron.
>> 
>> When I later saw John W and Martin's work from 1997 I was again very
interested, principally because they were saying the same thing I was
thinking, in general.
>> 
>> While running the math and testing the model from John W and Martin, it
occurred to me that we had to have some sort of photon model to build the
electron from. So I produced the simplest model I could imagine which would
fulfill what I felt then was the basic criteria.  My view of the basic
criteria has since changed due to this collaboration, so I am working now to
update my electron model.  However it seems most of the electron model
remains intact.
>> 
>> The fundamental differences between my model and John W. and Martin's
model are as follows:
>> 
>>      I found that wave interference may be precisely the cause for the
exact value of the    magnetic moment anomaly, and the cause for the exact
value for the elementary   charge.
>> 
>>      That wave interference, incidentally, produces a new view of the
fine structure         constant in the electron.
>> 
>> My motivation, in part, to do this work, was because we have to provide
an electron model which is simple in comparison, and competes with current
theory and models in accuracy, before such a model will be considered a
viable alternative.
>> 
>> My model currently falls short of some of the goals that I feel we will
need, in order for our work to be considered noteworthy and to be eventually
accepted.
>> 
>> My model also demonstrates the cause for inertial mass, but I think John
W. and Martin's model may illustrate the same property. And in fact, all
confined photon models may show the same attribute of inertial mass.
>> 
>> There are implications of the work we are doing which we also need to
discuss.  If Matter is made from light, when you think about its
implications on relativity, leads to the existence of a preferred reference
rest frame in space, leading us toward Chandra's view and CTF.
>> 
>> Working with all of you is both enlightening and inspiring.
>> 
>> Chip
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins> <
<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins> mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandpart>
gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandpart<
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandpart>
mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandpart>
>>  <http://icles.org/> icles.org< <http://icles.org/> http://icles.org/>]
On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:10 PM
>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> Subject: [General] double-loop electron model discussion
>> 
>> I would like to start a thread that focuses on  comparing and contrasting
the various double-loop electron models, mainly John and Martin’s (J/M's),
Chip’s, Vivian's and mine, and any others that people may know of, to find
any common areas of agreement, and any points of difference. I think we are
all agreed that the resting electron in our various models has spin 1/2
hbar. Chip’s model is based on J/M's model. I’d like to ask Chip, if I
might, what commonalities and differences exist between J/M’s electron model
and Chip's electron model. We can go on from there, if that’s agreeable.
>>    Richard
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>> Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> chipakins at gmail.com<
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> <a
>> href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n
>>
<http://atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconf
ir> atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfir<
<http://atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconf
ir>
http://atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfi
r>
>> m=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
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com<
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> <a
>> href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n
>>
<http://atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubc
on> atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubcon<
<http://atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubc
on>
http://atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubco
n>
>> firm=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  <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
chipakins at gmail.com< <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> <a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/chipakins%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  <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
mules333 at gmail.com< <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
> <a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com< <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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.
> <The Electron as a Confined Photon CA.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List at
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
> <a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

Hi Martin

 

I have read your 1997 paper many times and continue to refer to it during
research.

 

Rereading the Feynman Lectures II chapter 28 now.

 

I am fairly certain that my model, derived in part from yours, handles these
issues similarly, but adds some specifics for the electron you may be
interested in. If you have not read it please give it a look.

 

Chip

 

From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:23 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

Hi Chip,

John and I have dealt with it in our model. However, we can only be sure if
we can also develop a complete theory: a model is just and only a toy. A
very important toy to guide our thinking and to help us taking all aspects
on board.

In our 1997 paper, we dealt with just about everything, except for:

*         The Pauli principle (interference at same Compton frequency)

*         The weak interaction (linked field lines)

*         The strong interaction (knotted flow)

Although after all these years I still feel that our model is very adequate,
perhaps the most important of our 1997 paper is that it explains the
problems related to certain properties of the electron.

So read the paper and you will know a lot more about the physics involved.
And do read Chapter 28 VOL II of Feynman.

Good luck,

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.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: dinsdag 3 maart 2015 18:05
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

Hi Martin

 

Thank you for the comments.

 

In your opinion does the model you and John W. created for the electron
(1997) satisfy this self-energy problem you mention?

 

I have read the Feynman lectures, but it has been a while, so time for a
review.

 

Infinities are quite distasteful, and an electron has spin and a magnetic
moment, so it can be argued that the electron cannot actually be a point,
even if it does react at a single point.

 

Thoughts?

 

Chip

 

From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:40 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

Hi Chip, Richard and Andrew,

1)      Ever read chapter 28 of Vol. II of the Feynman Lectures?

It is about the energy in the field of a charged object, like a football
that has been rubbed against a cat (as physicists do).

That energy goes to infinity at smaller and smaller radius. This leads to
the self-energy problem for a small particle. (The invention of charged
photons doesn’t seem to do this any good)

2)      The interaction of an electron is point-like, it means that it
consists of a single thing, not two massive parts bound by a force (because
that would vibrate at some energy)

Any electron model must be able to make plausible why this is.

Some thinking to do for you perhaps


Best, 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.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: dinsdag 3 maart 2015 17:10
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

Hi Richard and Andrew

 

Andrew, I have been looking at the annihilation reaction of the electron and
positron and considering that the result yields two photons of the energy
0.511MeV. Then assuming the electron and positron are each made of one
photon.

So far, possibly due to my assumptions regarding the nature of a photon, I
have not been able to logically justify splitting the positive and negative
“portions’ of a single photon to create these two oppositely charged
particles. To me the positive and negative portions of the photon are really
made of the same thing, in that they are simply one field vector pointing
toward the positive. The positive and negative ends being part of the same
spacetime distortion.

 

I have attached an updated draft of the electron as a confined photon.

 

Chip

 

From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:08 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

Hi Andrew,

   That’s a very interesting view that a wormhole connection between a
created electron-positron pair could resolve the EPR paradox. I think that
you would need to show that the same wormhole explanation would resolve the
EPR paradox with other particles that are quantum mechanically entangled.
You would also need to show that the appropriate quantum communication
between two particles could pass between their connecting wormhole to keep
them entangled.

    There are other sub-quantum hypotheses I suppose about how a photon
interacting with another photon or an atomic nucleus can create an electron
pair. Have you studied them and eliminated them as possible contenders?

 

On Mar 2, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Andrew Meulenberg < <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:

 

Dear Richard, Chip, et al.,

I thought for a long time about the electron as a self-bound photon, before
I realized that I could only make progress when I considered the
electron/positron pair as that photon. So, instead of a free photon (a
soliton) we must consider 2 self-bound solitons, that can be separated. It
was the paraphrased statement(s) from a molecular biologist (who read more
physics than I did) that started me on the right path. "Mass and charge are
only produced when (& as) the soliton pair are separated." This became the
basis of a paper that AJP rejected in 9 minutes from its electronic receipt.
However, with that identity of mass and charge in mind and with the
recognition of total internal reflection (TIR) as a means of binding light
in a "whispering-Gallery" mode, it became clear that the transverse electric
field of a bound photon could be 'rectified' by the Goos–Hänchen or
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect> Imbert–Fedorov
effect of a photon and give the net charge of an electron. This happens at a
unique frequency and orbit size where the negative phase shift exactly
equals the phase advance of the photon and the electric field can always
point out. If the phase is not correct, then the distortion of space (which
affects the refractive index of the path and thus the curvature of the
photon) is not resonant. However, this difference in curvature, balanced
against the phase shift gives a stable configuration.

That was the easy part. Nevertheless, I have not yet actually done the full
calculations. Someone of the group, with more mathematical ability than I,
could do so and coauthor my paper.

My present conjecture:  What happens to the field confined inside the
bound-photon 'orbit'? It is so greatly concentrated by the path curvature
that it becomes 'singular' at the center. Nature 'abhors a singularity' even
more than it abhors a vacuum! The extreme energy density distorts space and
forms a 'connection' between the forming electron and positron. I believe
that the distortion is a wormhole and the connection is thru time. Just as
the external field lines of a bar magnet are 'closed' thru the bar, I
believe that the electric field lines of an electron/positron (the lepton)
pair in space, also form and are closed thru time via the wormhole. The
lepton pair remains connected (entangled) by this internal structure until
the wormhole 'distributes' among all of the neighboring charges. [I don't
believe that the wormhole collapses until a pair annihilates.] Since time
does not exist within a wormhole, this resolves the EPR paradox.

In response to Richard's intent "I would like to start a thread that focuses
on comparing and contrasting the various double-loop electron models ... to
find any common areas of agreement, and any points of difference."

My original double-loop model assumed that every wavelength is divided in
1/2 and then recombined (nearly superposed). It required a different type of
phase shift than normally assumed and was nicely represented by the mobius
strip with a 1/2 twist per 1/2 cycle (a full rotation for every wavelength).

My present concept, using the Goos–Hänchen or Imbert–Fedorov effect, does
not require a relationship between a 'twist' and the photon wavelength,
since the path curvature provides the necessary phase shift to keep the
fields constant. These options must still be confirmed.

Thus, I have two models with different mobius twist factors. One with a 1/2
twist per 1/2 cycle, and one with no twist at all. I believe that both
models would allow the electron to be the lowest level and this structure
could have higher levels such as the muon. (However, I don't think that they
can be considered excited states.)

Andrew
_____________________________

 

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Chip Akins < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Richard

One of the items which intrigued me while studying electron models, was the
notion that charge was topologically generated by the spin of the electron.
We only find charge in spin 1/2 particles. Looking at U(1) and SU(2) and the
Yang-Mills "phase force" idea, led me to be even more convinced.

As it turns out, it seems the photon is capable of generating charge
topologically, when confined. Of course the simplest method to express that
confinement is a monochromatic circular plane wave, certain toroidal models
may also work, as long as the negative end of the E field is exposed to the
outside.

Another attraction in starting with the plane circular model, is the
relative ease of analyzing wave interference.  It happens that wave
interference is very important, because the result is that the effective
electrical and magnetic radius is then slightly larger than the transport
radius, providing the exact values for the magnetic moment (with anomaly),
and the exact electric charge.  Wave interference occurs near the center of
the model, making the E field less efficient near the center, and thereby
shifting the effective E field radius, and therefore the effective magnetic
radius, outwards, while not affecting the transport radius.

With these values (magnetic moment and charge) defined so accurately in the
model, it is still a little puzzling that my models wave interference
predicts a value for the fine structure, internal to the electron, of
0.007285993718303 when the actual value (CODATA) is 0.0072973525698.  The
difference is 0.1557% but I still feel it is significant, and want to know
why the difference is there. Maybe I am calculating the interference
incorrectly or incompletely. Or maybe there is another contribution to the
fine structure which I have missed. While writing this I may have discovered
where my error is.  I kept telling myself that the fields actually extend
far beyond the effective RMS radius but falling off in intensity, and I
accounted for that in part of the wave interference calculations, but not
all of the interference was calculated, because I failed to see its tiny
contribution before now.

Another aspect of my model which is unique and not incorporated in any other
model we have seen is the relative phase of the electrical and magnetic
components of the wave.  This aspect becomes important when understanding
how the photon is confined.
The electron exhibits many clues to its nature. From this model we can
calculate the exact known value for the Quantum Hall effect, by simply
running some standard electrical engineering formula using the "voltage",
"current", and frequency. This indicates also that an electrical engineering
analysis may provide other valuable information.  Using a similar approach
we can understand that the electron will display a particular phase
relationship between E and M components.  In a simple EM resonant system the
E and M components are shifted 90 degrees at resonance.  If we start with a
90 degree phase shift and  look at the double loop configuration of the wave
we see an apparent 180 degree phase shift in the confined E and M
components, placing them on opposite sides of the electron radius at any
given instant. Then it is much easier to see that with the E and M fields on
opposite sides, and the attraction between these fields, the issue of photon
confinement is simplified somewhat.

We still have a ways to go, getting answers to many of the remaining
questions.  But so far it seems like the group has uncovered some important
new understanding which may lead us to a clearer, causal, view of physics,
and provide a new basis which can describe experiment more fully and
accurately.

Chip

-----Original Message-----
From: General [mailto: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
general-bounces+chipakins=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:47 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion

Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

Hi Chip,

   Thank you for your thoughtful as well as personal history comments about
your interest in modeling the electron. My own interest in the structure and
composition of the electron dates back to the late 1980’s. My spiritual guru
gave some new ideas in 1986 about how matter might be formed by a kind of
life principle transmitted through subtle vibrating life-energy entities
that have both a mental and a physical portion. That idea intrigued me and
soon I tried to apply the idea to make a model of a photon as being composed
of millions of these oscillating life-particles. I had mainly my intuition
to guide me. My photon model soon contained a single circulating energy
entity (a superluminal energy quantum) traveling helically at a 45 degree
angle with the speed c sqrt(2) and a total momentum along a helical
trajectory of (h/lambda) sqrt(2). The energy quantum's helical radius is the
photon’s wavelength lambda divided by 2 pi. This result came out of the
requirement that the photon model should have its experimental value of spin
hbar (or minus hbar) generated by the transverse component of the
superluminal energy quantum's total momentum along its helical trajectory,
while having the transluminal energy quantum’s longitudinal component of
momentum be the photon's linear momentum p=h/lambda.

    I then modeled the electron as a closed charged photon-like object. I
knew very little about the Dirac equation except its prediction of
antimatter and that the electron has a 4pi rotational symmetry. I also found
that a single closed-loop of one wavelength of a photon (the Compton
wavelength h/mc) with the electron’s rest energy mc^2 yields a spin of 1
hbar — twice the value of the electron’s spin. It hit me that making a
double-loop of a single wavelength photon produces an electron model with a
spin of 1/2 hbar.

    While making my electron model I realized that it should also have the
electron’s magnetic moment M — approximately the magnitude of the Bohr
magneton (e hbar)/2m. I set the electron model to have the Bohr magneton for
its magnetic moment by adjusting the radius of the closed helical path of
the helically moving charged superluminal energy quantum so that its
helically circulating charge generates the Dirac equation electron's Bohr
magneton for the electron model. (Choosing a slightly larger helical radius
generates the electron’s exact experimental value of magnetic moment which
is a little larger than the Bohr magneton’s magnitude.)

    Later I started analyzing other people’s cyclical models of the electron
more closely. I found that Dirac had claimed that electrons actually move at
the speed of light, but that only a sub-luminal speed can be observed. I
found two analyses of the Dirac equation that suggested that the path of a
moving electron’s charge can be described as light-speed along an open
helix. This gave me the idea to fit my model of the circulating charged
photon for a resting electron to this light-speed helical approach. I
realized that the circulating photon in the electron model would have an
increased frequency f corresponding to its increased total energy gamma mc^2
when the electron moves forward, and that the corresponding wavelength of
this circulating charged photon would decrease with this increasing
frequency, in order to keep the speed of light of the circulating charged
photon constant. The radius of the charged photon’s helix was found to
decrease with increasing electron velocity by the factor gamma^2 in order
for the photon’s wavelength to decrease as described as the frequency of the
charged photon increases with increasing electron speed and total energy.
All the math worked out nicely, including the generation of the electron’s
spin 1/2 hbar for a slow moving electron from the tangential component mc of
the charged photon’s total momentum gamma mc along its helical axis,
multiplied by the radius hbar/2mc of the charged photon’s helical axis for a
slow moving electron. And I realized that any speed-of-light double-looping
photon model for an electron should also follow a corresponding helical path
whose radius decreases in the same way with the electron’s increase speed.
This is because the result only depends on the relations E=hf, p=h/lambda ,
and c= lambda f ,  the basic quantum energy and momentum equations for a
photon and the equation for wave motion with speed c.

     Although I knew that any acceptable electron model would have to
generate the relativistic de Broglie wavelength Ldb = h/(gamma mv) , I was
quite surprised that this result falls out so easily from the circulating
charged photon model of a moving electron, where the longitudinal component
of the circulating charged photon’s wave vector k yields the wave number
that corresponds to the relativistic de Broglie wavelength. Furthermore,
this simple result for the origin of the electron’s de Broglie wavelength
suggests that the quantum wave functions for a moving electron, which depend
heavily on the electron's de Broglie wavelength, are produced mathematically
from the waves generated by the circulating charged photon that models the
electron.

       Richard

> On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:47 AM, Chip Akins < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard and ALL
>
> You asked for a comparison of electron models.
>
> Since 1986, while having lunch with a mathematician, Eric Peterson, I have
felt that the electron was made up of EM waves, or a photon.
>
> Several of us have come to the same conclusion.
>
> When I saw your model from 2005 many things started to make sense.  That
is why I was so excited and interested to fully pursue the math to try to
deeply understand your TEQ model. It was quite informative and inspiring to
see your work.
>
> Since that time, principally due to an Occam's razor argument, I have
returned to the view that TEQ's are not required to model the electron.
While I still feel that it may be possible that TEQ's exist, I do not find,
in my view, that it is required for the modeling of the photon and electron.
>
> When I later saw John W and Martin's work from 1997 I was again very
interested, principally because they were saying the same thing I was
thinking, in general.
>
> While running the math and testing the model from John W and Martin, it
occurred to me that we had to have some sort of photon model to build the
electron from. So I produced the simplest model I could imagine which would
fulfill what I felt then was the basic criteria.  My view of the basic
criteria has since changed due to this collaboration, so I am working now to
update my electron model.  However it seems most of the electron model
remains intact.
>
> The fundamental differences between my model and John W. and Martin's
model are as follows:
>
>       I found that wave interference may be precisely the cause for the
exact value of the    magnetic moment anomaly, and the cause for the exact
value for the elementary   charge.
>
>       That wave interference, incidentally, produces a new view of the
fine structure         constant in the electron.
>
> My motivation, in part, to do this work, was because we have to provide an
electron model which is simple in comparison, and competes with current
theory and models in accuracy, before such a model will be considered a
viable alternative.
>
> My model currently falls short of some of the goals that I feel we will
need, in order for our work to be considered noteworthy and to be eventually
accepted.
>
> My model also demonstrates the cause for inertial mass, but I think John
W. and Martin's model may illustrate the same property. And in fact, all
confined photon models may show the same attribute of inertial mass.
>
> There are implications of the work we are doing which we also need to
discuss.  If Matter is made from light, when you think about its
implications on relativity, leads to the existence of a preferred reference
rest frame in space, leading us toward Chandra's view and CTF.
>
> Working with all of you is both enlightening and inspiring.
>
> Chip
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: General
> [mailto: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins> general-bounces+chipakins=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandpart>
gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandpart
>  <http://icles.org/> icles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:10 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: [General] double-loop electron model discussion
>
> I would like to start a thread that focuses on  comparing and contrasting
the various double-loop electron models, mainly John and Martin’s (J/M's),
Chip’s, Vivian's and mine, and any others that people may know of, to find
any common areas of agreement, and any points of difference. I think we are
all agreed that the resting electron in our various models has spin 1/2
hbar. Chip’s model is based on J/M's model. I’d like to ask Chip, if I
might, what commonalities and differences exist between J/M’s electron model
and Chip's electron model. We can go on from there, if that’s agreeable.
>     Richard
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> chipakins at gmail.com <a
> href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n
>
<http://atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconf
ir> atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfir
> m=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
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a
> href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n
>
<http://atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubc
on> atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubcon
> firm=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  <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
chipakins at gmail.com <a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/chipakins%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  <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
mules333 at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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.

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> 
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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
<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 johnduffield at btconnect.com
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> 
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> 
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20150309/d966a742/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150309/d966a742/attachment-0001.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 548 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150309/d966a742/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 497 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150309/d966a742/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 456 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150309/d966a742/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 534 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150309/d966a742/attachment-0010.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 526 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150309/d966a742/attachment-0011.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 292 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150309/d966a742/attachment-0012.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 392 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150309/d966a742/attachment-0013.png>