[General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field

[Andrew Meulenberg]

John D said: "We should “torque” about neutrinos more, because they are
more like photons than they’re like electrons."

I thought that I was the only one crazy enough to talk about neutrinos as
photons. Or photons as a subset of neutrinos. However, I suspect that this
group might have others with the same perception.

I consider neutrinos to be photons from a relativistic bound electron. They
should have, in addition to the oscillating E & B fields, an oscillating
Mass field. I think that the argument that they must be fermions (to
'conserve' the fermion number of the neutron, electron, and proton) is
bogus. They may be fermions and/or bosons, but the argument is bogus. I
think that photons can be either, or both, fermions and bosons. Has anyone
directly measured the spin of a neutrino (other than by comparison of the
number of fermions present)?

If it *is* a photon from a relativistic electron, then the neutron is an
electron plus a proton and that is 'forbidden' speech. However, when the
concept of the neutron was 'defined' (set in concrete), there were no
charge-density profiles available to point to and defend the bound-electron
model. There are now.

This group could be self-consistently redefining the foundations of modern
physics.

Andrew


On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:06 PM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
wrote:

>   John:
>
> Sorry to be slow getting back to you. Yes, Robert Close is a good man, and
> he isn’t crazy, and nor are we. The people who say the electron is a
> point-particle are crazy. No, I don’t understand that “essential point”. I
> simplify the electron to a photon going round in a circle, then move the
> circle such that one point on the circumference traces out a helix, and all
> points on the circumference trace out a cylinder. It has more energy so it
> has a higher frequency, and it’s subject to SR time dilation, but I don’t
> get your point. I “root for relativity”, but a Lorentz transformation is
> just Pythagoras’s theorem, as per the simple inference of time dilation
> due to relative velocity
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity>.
> And that velocity might be relative, I might be passing by it, it hasn’t
> changed, I have.
>
> *This is because the Lorentz transformations for clocks and for energies
> (or frequencies) transform differently - as I said before. The underlying
> reason they do this is that they need to do this to preserve the linearity
> of energy. Energy trumps space and time. That is the point. This argument
> has also been looked into, long ago, by Jan Hilgevoord, in a paper which
> suggests that frequency is more fundamental than time. I would agree to a
> point ...   but would argue that one needs both! Energy is the stronger,
> and space and time must bend to it, but space and time do not vanish - they
> merely transform.*
>
> Sorry John, I’m not getting this. Have I ever told you that space and
> energy seem to be the same thing? It’s like space is this gin-clear ghostly
> elastic jelly, that can be subjected to pressure and shear stress. And to
> do this you stick in a gedanken hypodermic needle, and inject some
> gin-clear ghostly elastic jelly.
>
> [image: StressEnergyTensor_contravariant_svg]
>
>
>
> *Martin discovered this feature (of both slowing and quickening)
> independently (about our model) way back in 1991 or 1992 (I forget exactly
> when but could look it up in my daybook) This was before we first tried
> submitting the material eventually published in 1997. The de Broglie
> wavelength, itself, then arises as the beat between these two "clocks". One
> speeding up and one slowing down. All of us came to this long after de
> Broglie, who wrote about it in his thesis in 1923 (If I remember the
> date).*
> Can you send me something, or a reference? I rather thought the electron
> wavelength was there because h is what it is. One way of expressing the
> dimensionality of action is momentum x distance. Like Maxwell’s transverse
> undulations all share the same amplitude. Like you pluck a guitar string,
> the wavelength varies as you move your left hand on the frets, but your
> pluck is uniform.
>
>
> *At that time we were unaware that this had been done before by de
> Broglie. That was pointed out to us, as I said in a previous email, by
> Ulrich Enz (the father of the soliton). I think he got hold of a copy of
> our second (1994) attempt paper - and got in touch with us then (am I right
> Martin?). It was de Broglie's work that, LED to quantum mechanics a few
> years later. In other words QM is, and was originally, DERIVED from a
> proper consideration of relativity. THis knowledge is now essentially lost
> to most physicists as it is considered too advanced and too hard
> conceptually. There are only Two other physicists I have met who knew about
> this before I told them- Alex Afriat and the great Basil Hiley. Neither
> they (nor I) have a forum to teach this as it is, indeed, too advanced for
> undergrads. THis is how such things as this (and the Godel stuff) get lost.*
> There’s plenty of stuff that’s been “lost”. Sometimes I feel like I’m
> working with the lost secrets of the ancients. Again, please send me
> something.
>
>
> *The point is that the fact that the rulers, clocks and energies
> transform, does not mean they go away. THey just look a bit smaller or a
> bit bigger, thats all. Ones man space is anothers time (4 cpts). These four
> components merge into one another according with the LONGITUDINAL cpt of
> space mixing with that of time according to relativity. One scales with
> one.*
> We are made of light, we measure space with the motion of light, we
> measure time with the motion of light, and when we move, our measurements
> shift. Things look a bit smaller or a bit bigger, but they didn’t change,
> we did.
>
> Field is different. Ones man's magnetic field is anothers electric and
> vice versa.  Here it is not the longitudinal cpts but the TRANSVERSE cpts
> that transform. Look at the equations! Two scales with two (although both
> are defined in just one (transverse) direction). In fact Ex goes to By and
> so on. Look at the Maxwell equations. Think light. Think photons.
>
> I must nitpick on this, because the field is the electromagnetic field,
> and IMHO the “electric field” is a name you give to the linear force you
> see when two electromagnetic fields interact. Add some relative motion, and
> you also see a “magnetic field” which is the name you give to the
> rotational force. In a magnet the linear forces cancel and you only see
> magnetic force, and we call that a magnetic field. But the electron doesn’t
> have an electric field, or a magnetic field, it has an electromagnetic
> field, like this:
>
> [image: EMfield2].
>
> *Look - we very very nearly agree completely (and I really appreciate you
> sticking to your guns!). All you would have to do now to get complete
> agreement would be to convince me that energy was motion.*
>
> I don’t quite think it is, because in a black hole motion is time-dilated
> to oblivion, and the energy is still there. But in the normal scheme of
> thing the photon is a pressure-pulse propagating though space at c, and it
> can be put through repeated Compton scattering and converted entirely into
> the motion of electrons. And yet we can make an electron out of it. So the
> electron is *made* out of motion, going nowhere fast, all round and round
> at c such that the field-variation looks like a standing wave. Standing
> wave, standing field. Zitterbewegung apart, it looks like it isn’t moving
> at all. But it is, because after annihilation your photons are off like a
> shot, and they don’t do this from a standing start.
>
> This has some truth in it, for me, but you would find me arguing that,
> properly, energy is more like axial motion. E = h nu - angular momentum
> times frequency - still an axial vector and not a linear movement (space
> over time c.f. space over perpendicular space). This is axial or (space/
> parallel space) scalar. What you do to add energy to a photon is to spin it
> up, not make it go faster. It does not go faster (as you said!). Torque and
> energy have the same units (newton metres) but are different. For energy to
> be motion it would have to be scalar, point, invariant motion. Stationary
> motion. Motion which is still (and invariant) in every frame. Hey .. I can
> do this. Williamson introduces the new concept of static motion. We could
> call it (rest) mass. We could also have twisting motion - the axial part -
> we could call that photons or we could call that energy. Who said argument
> was not a good thing!
>
> Sounds good to me. We should “torque” about neutrinos more, because they
> are more like photons than they’re like electrons.
>
> Want to write a john-john paper about it?
> Yeah!
>
> NB: I have to go away tomorrow and plan to come back on Wednesday. I
> expect to be incommunicado, and it could turn into a week away.  Meanwhile
> have a nice time with Martin.
>
> Regards
> John D
>
>
>  *From:* John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2015 4:38 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field
>
>  Right, I have read it.
>
> Hope the robustness of the following does not shock any of our other new
> friends, but we know each other so here goes ....
>
> Robert Close is right, as far as he goes. Remember who you are talking to
> though. This is the same Williamson who has been saying that particles are
> made of light for over a quarter of a century. Who has been saying that the
> transformations of the electron are the same as the transformations of
> light all along. This IS argued strongly in the 1997 paper. Look at it!
> Close is close, but still just not quite there. (Good man though, do you
> know him?) He is clearly crazy like us, but for me not just quite crazy
> enough!
>
> THis is all true. We have not been disagreeing about this. Re-read the
> previous correspondence! WE both agree now, agreed then and continue to
> agree that the reason one measures the same speed in any frame is just
> because the rulers and clocks BOTH scale with lightspeed. Yes. Yes yes yes
> yes yes! This is the point!
>
> You are STILL, however, missing another essential point.
>
> That is that, for particles (or bound photons) BOTH clocks slow down (tick
> more slowly) AND, simultaneously, oscillate more quickly (tick more
> quickly).  I will say this again (but only once) ...
>
> For particles (or bound photons) BOTH clocks slow down (tick more slowly)
> AND, simultaneously, oscillate more quickly (tick more quickly).
>
>
> This is because the Lorentz transformations for clocks and for energies
> (or frequencies) transform differently - as I said before. The underlying
> reason they do this is that they need to do this to preserve the linearity
> of energy. Energy trumps space and time. That is the point. This argument
> has also been looked into, long ago, by Jan Hilgevoord, in a paper which
> suggests that frequency is more fundamental than time. I would agree to a
> point ...   but would argue that one needs both! Energy is the stronger,
> and space and time must bend to it, but space and time do not vanish - they
> merely transform.
>
> Martin discovered this feature (of both slowing and quickening)
> independently (about our model) way back in 1991 or 1992 (I forget exactly
> when but could look it up in my daybook) This was before we first tried
> submitting the material eventually published in 1997. The de Broglie
> wavelength, itself, then arises as the beat between these two "clocks". One
> speeding up and one slowing down. All of us came to this long after de
> Broglie, who wrote about it in his thesis in 1923 (If I remember the  date).
>
> At that time we were unaware that this had been done before by de Broglie.
> That was pointed out to us, as I said in a previous email, by Ulrich Enz
> (the father of the soliton). I think he got hold of a copy of our second
> (1994) attempt paper - and got in touch with us then (am I right Martin?).
> It was de Broglie's work that, LED to quantum mechanics a few years later.
> In other words QM is, and was originally, DERIVED from a proper
> consideration of relativity. THis knowledge is now essentially lost to most
> physicists as it is considered too advanced and too hard conceptually.
> There are only Two other physicists I have met who knew about this before I
> told them- Alex Afriat and the great Basil Hiley. Neither they (nor I) have
> a forum to teach this as it is, indeed, too advanced for undergrads. THis
> is how such things as this (and the Godel stuff) get lost.
>
> The point is that the fact that the rulers, clocks and energies transform,
> does not mean they go away. THey just look a bit smaller or a bit bigger,
> thats all. Ones man space is anothers time (4 cpts). These four components
> merge into one another according with the LONGITUDINAL cpt of space mixing
> with that of time according to relativity. One scales with one.
>
> Field is different. Ones man's magnetic field is anothers electric and
> vice versa.  Here it is not the longitudinal cpts but the TRANSVERSE cpts
> that transform. Look at the equations! Two scales with two (although both
> are defined in just one (transverse) direction). In fact Ex goes to By and
> so on. Look at the Maxwell equations. Think light. Think photons.
>
> Space and time continue to exist. Space and time are what you are, what
> you live in and are mirrored in the space we construct around us in our
> minds.
>
> Look - we very very nearly agree completely (and I really appreciate you
> sticking to your guns!). All you would have to do now to get complete
> agreement would be to convince me that energy was motion. This has some
> truth in it, for me, but you would find me arguing that, properly, energy
> is more like axial motion. E = h nu - angular momentum times frequency -
> still an axial vector and not a linear movement (space over time c.f. space
> over perpendicular space). This is axial or (space/ parallel space) scalar.
> What you do to add energy to a photon is to spin it up, not make it go
> faster. It does not go faster (as you said!). Torque and energy have the
> same units (newton metres) but are different. For energy to be motion it
> would have to be scalar, point, invariant motion. Stationary motion. Motion
> which is still (and invariant) in every frame. Hey .. I can do this.
> Williamson introduces the new concept of static motion. We could call it
> (rest) mass. We could also have twisting motion - the axial part - we could
> call that photons or we could call that energy. Who said argument was not a
> good thing!
>
> Want to write a john-john paper about it?
>
> Think about it!
>
> - John Williamson.
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John
> Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:24 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field
>
>   John,
>
> I must insist on giving some feedback:
>
> *I do not think there is any badness out there*
>
> Do not fool yourself. There is backstabbing double-dealing propaganda and
> censorship from charlatans and quacks peddling pseudoscience woo and
> engaged in scientific fraud.
>
> *relativity means the speed of light is always constant and, on the other,
> that it is actually infinite.*
>
> Relativity means it’s neither constant nor infinite. The wave nature of
> matter makes it *look* constant, but it isn’t. It *looks* constant
> because *you are made of light*. Read the attached. Print it out, sit
> down, and read it. Try to find fault with it. When you can’t, mull it over,
> and appreciate that the wave nature of matter means the motion of waves is
> the only thing you’ve got to calibrate your rods and clocks. Then remember
> what I said this morning. If there’s one little thing that you get wrong,
> bad people will use it to discredit you and everything else you say.
>
> *the speed is exactly c whenever you measure it , in any inertial frame.
> Proof- experiment. Secondly,  one can always accelerate a particle, adding
> momentum and energy indefinitely. Proof -experiment.*
>
> The speed is c when you measure it because you use the motion of light to
> define your second and your metre. Then when you measure that light going
> to the moon and back, you measure 299,792,458m/s, not some infinite speed.
> Proof – experiment.
>
> *Now comes the hard part, taking this on board*
>
> The hard part is abandoning an idea you’ve fallen in love with. Whether
> it’s the charged photon or the infinite speed of light or a wormhole.
>
> *The way in which space and time vary relativistically from observer to
> observer comes from a deeper principle. *
>
> Space waves and waves move, and that’s all there is.
>
> Regards
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:42 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field
>
>
> Brilliant!
>
>
> Thank you for those kind words.
>
>
> I think I see the problem now and will try to help fix it.
>
> Before I do so I have a little request. I have submitted dozens of papers
> in the last few years, but few have made it into print. I am getting very,
> very tired. I have a lot of energy - but this is exhausting me. I do not
> think there is any badness out there - I think people genuinely do not get
> what I am trying to say. Mostly my fault, I am sure.  I'm very curious,
> nevertheless as to what IS out there. Since you have been looking, could
> you please forward to me what you have been able to find? I could then fill
> you (and the group) in on a few of the papers covering that which is
> missing.
>
> Right - absolute relativity, infinite speed of light and all that rubbish.
> That idiot Williamson has been saying, on the one hand that relativity
> means the speed of light is always constant and, on the other, that it is
> actually infinite. Can the crazy fool please just make up his mind!  I'm
> afraid this kind of thing always happens and is, almost certainly, one of
> the reasons I'm having trouble getting things into print these days (when I
> used to think it was a bad year if I did not have my name on at least a few
> Phys. Rev Letters).
>
> The thing is that Both are true in my crazy mind at the same time. There
> is, however, no contradiction there of the kind I just tried to explain in
> the problems of QED in my earlier email.  This kind of thing does tend to
> drive folk nuts. I think I nearly killed Stephen when he was my PhD
> student. He would say - you say one thing - then you say another and then
> worse, you change it back to the first thing. It is a wonder that we are
> still (good) friends! Cheers Stephen!
>
> To the point ... the speed is exactly c whenever you measure it , in any
> inertial frame. Proof- experiment. Secondly,  one can always accelerate a
> particle, adding momentum and energy indefinitely. Proof -experiment. This
> is why I say the speed is limited (exp 1) and yet infinitely extensible
> (exp2), and hence for all practical purposes (FAPP), infinite. It just is.
> Now comes the hard part, taking this on board, taking the consequences of
> the (absolute craziness) and understanding it. This is really quite hard,
> conceptually. As John D says in his book - if you think you understand it
> you should be able to explain it. I will do my best ...
>
> I understand this in terms of my principle of absolute relativity. What is
> that? (its in the new theory of light and matter). Contrary to what you may
> have understood from my previous statements (everything is relative) it is
> really more about the fact that everything, to any given observer
> (absorber) or emitter, or indeed any intermediating photon in an
> inter-action - everything is absolute.
>
> Absolutely what? Absolutely in the frame of space and time of the absorber
> (for the absorber). Absolutely in the (different) frame of space and time
> for the emitter (for the emitter). And (almost) absolutely in another
> absolute and (very nearly incomprehensible) third frame for the
> intermediating photon. It is only in terms of our own frame that we can
> understand things  (this is where the confusion comes in for the
> experimenters in the paper you sent me). Now I am going to put all this in
> a proper paper, and present it in San Diego (if I can scrape together
> enough money to come) but will try to explain it now.
>
> It is the idea that one must, in all frames, in all spaces and for all
> times, associate any quantity with its proper space-time form. The basis of
> any objects inter-action with the universe is as related to their one and
> only proper, space and time. This space and this time is not common, but is
> unique to that specific observer. This is because, in relativity and, as
> Stephen put it in his thesis, "one mans space is another mans time.
>
> How do I implement this mathematically? It is by insisting that neither
> space nor time may appear without this proper form. Now this leads to a new
> kind of mathematics. Some of this is explained in an unpublished
> Martin-John paper "On division and the algebra of reality" but I should
> warn you that the absolute relativity thing currently goes beyond even
> Martin's comfort zone at the moment. He, when challenged as to why he is
> not happy says - "but you have just made it up". In this he is, of course,
> quite right. So from here on if you want to come with me this is into
> crazy-John-think... This universe may, or may not, correspond to reality
> (probably not!) Here is what I think it does if you do it though...
>
> What I claim this leads to (in the paper not currently on arXiv) are
> several things. These include, amongst other things, the necessary
> quantisation of allowed travelling-wave solutions of the ordinary Maxwell
> equations. Though charge is not introduced (I just add a rest MASS term)
> charge appears in the allowed solutions because the rapidly spiraling field
> of the photon becomes pure radial due to the confinement. One may calculate
> this pure radial effective charge and it is close to that of the electron.
> The analogy here is to our earlier paper, but the charge remains roughly
> the same. In other words I'm claiming that (absolute) relativity is
> responsible, for the quantisation of light, for the appearance of charge in
> charge particles (and not as some background charge density as in the
> Richard, model, QM, RQM and QED) and for the creation of Fermi- like states
> from Bose-like states. Thats all.
>
>
>
> The reconcilation of all this lies in what John D and Godel and Einstein
> were trying to get to as in the earlier discussion. The way in which space
> and time vary relativistically from observer to observer comes from a
> deeper principle. That principle remains to be fully revealed but is in the
> nature of transformation, the underlying nature of movement, the nature of
> space, time and the universe itself. The big problem we are all working on.
> Whatever that principle is, we all understand and observe our universe on
> the basis of our space and our time. Also we relate that, and describe it
> in our mathematics, as changes (differentials-divisions- Leonardo
> projections) with respect to our space and our time. Our concept of motion
> itself (which is more fundamental in my view – I am with John D on that )
> is our space divided by our time. A ratio then. This is why, IMHO,
> understanding division properly is so important. If you look at that ratio
> - actually look at it properly, impassionately and cooly in the mathematics
> of relativity, the problem comes because one is reaching towards a point
> where the division is undefined because the divisor heads towards zero.
> This is, technically, because any relativistic algebra is not a division
> algebra. Division becomes undefined on the lightcone. This was your problem
> when you tried to go to the co-moving photon frame (redshifted to oblivion-
> love the phrase)  and BOOm your brain went on tilt. Space -no ... time-no
> ... brain ... no no noooooooo. This on normal - no need to worry!
>
>
>
>  The principle of absolute relativity is more space and time leading to
> light and charge, rather than light leading to charge or vice-versa. I
> think Chandra has got precisely the right theme for his Thursday
> discussion. Well done that man!
>
>
>
> Can’t wait …
>
>
>
> Cheers, John.
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip
> Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:12 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field
>
>   Hi John W
>
>
>
> I have searched for the paper you referred to…
>
> “The "principle of absolute relativity" explained in the paper I
> circulated (and not put up on arXiv!)”
>
> I have many of the papers you have written but would like to make sure I
> have and read this paper. I have *“a new theory of light and matter*”.
> Is that the paper to which you are referring?
>
>
>
> If not would it be convenient for you to send it to me once more? I am
> very interested in reading it carefully.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Williamson
> *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 10:46 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field
>
>
>
> Excellent Chip!
>
> I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that I am very much going to meeting
> you and, perhaps, working with you. I loved reading the experimental
> papers, even if a bit guiltily as I should not have made the time for them
> (or the time for this come to that, but I cannot resist). The only minor
> pain for me was downloading the stuff from arXiv.
>
> Briefly, I think the experiment can be explained using a proper, classical
> approach. For me this is in terms of the "principle of absolute relativity"
> explained in the paper I circulated (and not put up on arXiv!). This level
> of complexity is, however, not neccessary and just ordinary relativity and
> classical field theory is enough - and all that is used here.
>
> I think there are several misconceptions and mistakes in some of the
> arguments presented in the paper - but would have to put a good amount of
> time into analysis and discussion of the paper to satisfy myself as to
> exactly what and where. I'm sorry if this is disappointing - but I will
> not  have time to do that in detail - only to point up one or two avenues
> for investigation if anyone else wants to take them up. I would like to
> hasten to add that these are not the fault of the experimenters-they come
> across as an excellent group, but in terms of the analysis of the various
> theories and models, or speculations as I prefer to call them (with
> Faraday). There is a remark attributed to Dirac that, after sitting
> politely through a talk which ended up deriving the wrong sign in the final
> expression and on which the speaker commented " I must have made a sign
> mistake somewhere", Dirac replied -"I think you will find that all you know
> is that you have made an odd number of mistakes" (thanks for flagging that
> one up for me Weaver). I should also say that, with my propensity for
> sign-blindness- that speaker could easily have been me!  With that proviso
> - here we go ...
>
> Firstly - in the virtual exchange particle picture: as Viv has already
> commented on this forum, there are very serious problems  if one steps
> outside of the narrow scope of QED. The most important for me,
> experimentally, is that there is a missing mass many orders of magnitude
> larger than that of the entire universe. In that sense it is not
> particulary surprising that it does not work here at the level of a few
> standard deviations. The problem, in my view is not with QED's basic
> postulates, but with the insistence in some circles that one needs point
> particles. In my view, those propounding this view should simply know
> better - this is manifestly too simplistic an idea. It is manifestly wrong
> experimentally - not only as shown by this experiment but also by simple
> observation of the universe. This is not to say QED is wrong- it is just
> not the whole story. It fits experiment well within its realm of validity
> and any future theory will have to reduce to it in the proper limit-as well
> as explaining its origins.
>
> Secondly - the argument of authority. It is always wrong to follow
> authority without thought. Especially Feynmann. He would either have been
> horrified, or have laughed at you (or both!). Having said this Feynmann was
> usually very, very right. He was, famously however, very confused about
> (electromagnetic) fields. He was even excited about not knowing what they
> were or how they worked! Look guys ... here is something I don't get ...
> (do you get it is the implied question). No. Not in his lifetime. Not to
> his satisfaction. Don't you just wish you could have explained it to him!
> Einstein too .. his work is littered with "in" jokes. This was his way of
> dealing with what my grandad would have called TBS - " too bloody serious".
> Einstien too had fun in physics - and so should we. One can only do this by
> thinking for oneself (cheers John D!). Chandra has stressed this too - we
> must remain free-thinking.
>
> Thirdly- the only two options trick. This works for kids. It is not,
> however, only the rigid bar electron-way or the QED-way. I think there is a
> third way - the proper way. This needs an underlying answer to the whole
> process.
>
> Fourthly: the wonder that the LW stuff gives the same answer as "infinite
> velocity". Nope, relativity is precisely the proper transformation which
> does this (in the paper I should be writing now instead of this!). The
> relativity is already in the LW approach. The "infinite velocity" is a
> problem in understanding, not in actuality.
>
> Fifthly: I have a feeling Feynmann may have not got the whole story here.
> I will leave this to QED theorists to argue with the experimentalists. Not
> my job-too much work!
>
> Sixthly: the connection with the "high velocity" by the Chinese group (in
> the *Bounding the speed of ‘spooky action at a distance paper)*. This
> misconception is rife. It is related to the lack of understanding of what a
> (quantum) state IS. It is a coherent state with proper, relativistic,
> harmonic resonant connection through space and time. The fact we use use
> nonrelativistic QM (usually with the Copenhagen interpretation) to try to
> describe it is our problem not its. I spent many days and a great deal of
> effort some years ago trying to get this across to a (now famous) physicist
> who shall remain nameless. He has then used the ideas (if a bit garbled) -
> without giving any credit as far as I am aware. That is fine- he has
> probably just forgotten where it came from... no more help of that kind
> from me though!
>
> Chip - pilot wave - not a problem this ... you may be right. Was talking
> to Basil Hiley (of de Broglie, Bohm, Hiley ...) a few months ago about some
> aspects of this for a (far too short) half day. He is brilliant and very
> much alive. I think the pilot wave picture is still missing something as
> well though. Perhaps we should bring him in on this...
>
> Ok, enough about problems (and that was only an even number). What about a
> story about (classical) solutions?
>
> It is traditional to give names to observers in thought-experiments. As is
> well known, all electron names must end in -on. I would like to consider
> members of two groups of these most excellent objects. The first group is
> our hero the magnificent Beamon - a happy (superhero) electron in the beam.
> The others are the Labrons - a bit slow this group, stuck as they are in
> the lab - spend a lot of time keeping themselves amused by synchronising
> their watches and measuring stuff- otherwise a worthy lot. I want to
> consider the experiment from two perspectives, that of Beamon and that of
> the Labrons. Firstly Beamon had an altercation a while ago with a giant
> particle accelerator ten to the fifteen times his own size. Gave him quite
> a kick. No problem - he walloped it by emitting a photon corresponding to
> precisely the difference in perfectly radial field in his old and new
> frames. And he had his magnificent, perfectly radial, electric field back
> in next to no time - in his own frame. That photon-child is no longer his
> concern as it sped off happily zillions of cycles ago, at the speed of
> light. It is no longer in his frame and no longer his worry. It is way
> ahead of him, and way ahead of the now-upcoming lab.  Beamon is serene now,
> perfectly rigidly radial at the center of his new beautiful, radial, field.
> Suddenly, up rushes the entire laboratory full of labrons, travelling,
> relative to him, at nearly the speed of light. The whole lab appears very
> distorted to him- evn if all its filed sseem to be rigind enogh and bound
> to the labrons.  That (acceleraton) photon is ago (is history) both for him
> and for the labrons.  The labrons fields are attenuated by local protons to
> lie within a de-broglie radius - not magnificent and extensively radial
> like his own. All their ruler-clocks seem a bit off with respect to his-
> but this is normal for labrons. They seem excited to see him - checking
> that his field, is, indeed, perfectly radial far out into the vacuum as he
> is maintaining it and has been maintaining it (as is required by the Great
> Gauge) far out into the vacuum around him - in both their frame and his. He
> knew that. He is Beamon the magnificent.
>
> What the labrons actually saw, however, was a massive, self important,
> near lightspeed electron with a total mass given by self-energy plus
> external field energy - all rigidly bound to his centre of mass.
>
> Explanation: as I said before in the John D discussion the speed of light
> is, properly, infinite in the sense that there is no limit to how much one
> can accelerate. The problem lies in the interpretation of the way in which
> rulers and clocks firstly distort and secondly merge seamlessly into one
> another in order to maintain the proper linearity of the universe.
> Ascribing a starting clock to this theory or that is meaningless. Things
> would be different if the event of acceleration occurred within the
> experimental time frame. That would then be a scattering experiment or a
> photon emission experiment though. Here the whole experiment, beam plus
> detector, is pre-prepared. The only place for real or virtual photons here
> is in the mind of he experimenter, not in the experiment itself (as the
> experiment, indeed, shows).
>
> Conclusion: this is really the same thing as the explanation with the
> (properly) relativistic LW transformations. As is observed (yet again) in
> experiment. It does not mean the electric field is "faster than light"
> though. It just means it exists.  This is because the concept of speed is
> difficult to grasp when all your rulers and clocks are bendy-relativistic
> (as John D and I were trying to get to the bottom of in the previous
> discussion). What it means is that each inter-actor sees the universe from
> its own perspective. What it reveals is the conceptual difficulties one
> goes through in trying to make up the stories for oneself.
>
> in short, my view: yes, of course. It is just a consequence of special
> relativity. The QED chappies (and ourselves) need to lighten up a bit and
> not be TBS.
>
> Cheers, John.
>
> P.S. If one goes to the advanced potentials as well (the Wheeler-Feynmann
> stuff discussed earlier) all this works too. This stuff is "faster than
> light". The reason for this is that the equations of special relativity are
> symettric about the speed of light. So if one could take a test mass (or
> light-in-a-box) of rest mass m accelerate it to lightspeed (at which point
> it becomes mass infinite, -for light one photon path blue-shifted to
> infinite - and then keep going .. the the relativistic total mass would
> come down again in the tachyonic regime, to reach precisely m again at
> precisely infinite velocity. This is mere maths of course - and reality may
> be different!
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip
> Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 5:23 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field
>
> Hi All
>
>
>
> Some thoughts are included regarding the velocity of “charge”.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts are welcomed and appreciated.
>
>
>
> The experiment, “*Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields*” [7],
> was conducted in 2012 and repeated in 2014 with the same results. This
> gives us some very valuable new information, and requires that we consider
> the implications of this discovery. This discovery may help us understand
> the apparent “pilot wave” concept, and even possibly may shed light (so to
> speak) on the evidence of non-locality and entanglement.
>
> At the very least this discovery indicates to us that charge is not
> correctly understood by the exchange of “virtual photons” *traveling at
> the speed of light*.
>
> If we also take into account the study “*Bounding the speed of ‘spooky
> action at a distance’*” [6] which infers the minimum velocity for the *action
> at a distance* at 13800 times c, which would appear to be infinite is
> short range experiments.
>
>
>
> If believe that normal EM radiation is in the form of transverse waves,
> where the wave motion is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Let us
> look at the possibility that charge is propagated as a longitudinal wave
> (“by analogy a compression wave” displacement) instead of a transverse
> wave.
>
> The velocity of a standard longitudinal wave in a medium is   where K is
> the “bulk (longitudinal compression) modulus of the medium, μ is the shear
> (transverse elastic) modulus of the medium, and *p* is the “density” of
> the medium.  The velocity of a transverse wave is
>
> .  We know that the velocity of normal transverse EM waves is so that we
> can restate that  or and or .  If we start by arbitrarily assigning p = c
> times Planck time or the value 1.616244097494180e-35, (for the media of
> space we will assume this to be a dimensionless value), then we arrive at a
> transverse modulus:
>
> 1.452607752869007e-18 and a longitudinal modulus: K =
> 2.766346185195634e-10 yielding a propagation velocity of *c* for
> transverse EM waves and a speed of 13800 times c for longitudinal “charge”.
>
> Establishing a realistic value for *p* “density” will be an interesting
> challenge.
>
> But we can see that it is possible for a longitudinal (and by analogy)
> “pressure” wave, in the E field to propagate much faster than *c*
> provided there is the appropriate transverse modulus and longitudinal
> modulus.
>
> Using this approach, charge interaction can be viewed as an exchange of a
> new type of virtual particle. That virtual particle would be comprised of a
> longitudinal wave with a specific polarity (+ or -) arriving first, and
> traveling at 13800 times the speed of light.
>
> If this is the actual mechanism at work, we also then have an explanation
> for faster than light quantum tunneling. In FTL quantum tunneling events,
> the energy in the normally transverse wave would be topologically forced to
> adopt a longitudinal configuration while tunneling.
>
> One additional implication exists related to this possible new speed of
> charge.  These longitudinal waves may only be sensed by either another
> charge, or by a change in ε0 and μ0 induced in spacetime, in areas with a
> high density of these longitudinal waves. This provides a possible cause
> for gravity, and would suggest that gravity also propagates at maybe 13800
> times the speed of light.
>
> Note:  “Cancelling” one charge with another does not reduce the density of
> these waves.  The concept is that a high density of these crossing and
> interacting longitudinal waves adds an embedded “stress” to spacetime,
> changing, reducing the speed of transverse waves, and therefore the speed
> of the waves comprising light and matter.
>
>
>
> Please feel free to disagree and point out the errors and flaws in this
> conjecture.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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, 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>
> 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>
> 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/1888820810/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1425732021&sr=1-1>
>  was interesting reading.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 07, 2015 6:06 AM
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <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]
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.][image: Image removed by sender.][image:
> Image removed by sender.]
>
> Actions[image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> 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.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of John Williamson [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.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of Richard Gauthier [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> 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.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [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>
>  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> 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.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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 <
> 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" <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 <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] 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.natureoflightandparticles.org <general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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 <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] 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.natureoflightandparticles.org <general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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 <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] 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 <mules333 at gmail.com<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 Imbert–Fedorov 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 <chipakins at gmail.com<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:general-bounces+chipakins<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins <general-bounces%2Bchipakins>>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<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 <chipakins at gmail.com<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:general-bounces+chipakins<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins <general-bounces%2Bchipakins>>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandpart<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandpart <gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandpart>>
>
> >> 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 chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com <chipakins at gmail.com>> <a
>
> >> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n
>
> >> atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfir<http://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 richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com <richgauthier at gmail.com>>
>
> >> <a
>
> >> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n
>
> >> atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubcon<http://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 chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com <chipakins at gmail.com>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.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 mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com <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<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com <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>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ________________________________
>
> > 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 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>
>
>   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
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *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.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *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.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *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 <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> 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 <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=
> 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 <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=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandpart
> > 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 chipakins at gmail.com <a
> > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n
> > 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 richgauthier at gmail.com
> > <a
> > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n
> > 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 chipakins at gmail.com <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.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 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>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> 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 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 at johnduffield at btconnect.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at 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/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 586 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0011.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EMfield2[1].jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 37175 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 380 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0012.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: StressEnergyTensor_contravariant_svg[2].png
Type: image/png
Size: 20043 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0013.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 364 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0014.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 793 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0015.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 494 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0016.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 475 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0017.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 313 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0018.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 689 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0019.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 535 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0020.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 585 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150313/605427ad/attachment-0021.png>