[General] inertia
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Jun 9 13:20:45 PDT 2016
Wolf,
thank you for your smart considerations. And I think that (almost) all
can be reasonably answered with an appropriate particle model in mind.
Am 09.06.2016 um 00:02 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht and Richard:
>
> This is an interesting discussion and certainly the nature of inertia
> an interesting topic
>
> But if ' "Field" is a human abstraction to describe the effect of a
> charge onto another charge.'
>
> Then the charges are located at the absorber and emitter , the photon
> is a structure of disturbance that propagates from one charge to the
> other.
>
Yes, the first point is the obvious consequence. The emitter and the
absorber has to contain charges. Any problems with this fact? And a
photon is a particle, quite (but not completely) similar to the other
particles. Why a structure of disturbance? It is much more a mostly
ordered structure.
>
> How do you possibly get to the "if a photon has a field" ?
>
Every particle has a field. This field on the one hand keeps the
constituents inside together. And the field on the other hand effects
the world outside the particle.
>
> If I eat a lot of garlic and walk into a closed room containing you.
> Then when I say "hello" I am emitting a field of garlic smelling
> particles and lucky you would pick up the smell by absorbing those
> particles. You would then say that the garlic smell is contained in
> the particles which make up the field of particles. Which is
> Albrecht's view of photons - they are carriers of hidden properties.
>
Photons are indeed carriers of properties, but why hidden? The photons
carry charges and, as they have inertia, they carry momentum and energy.
What is funny or weird about this? - In your picture the garlic smell
corresponds to the exchange particles in the case of charges and
elementary particles. It is a quite good picture with the restriction
that the exchange particles assumed by QM (and also by my model) are not
very similar to the molecules emitted by a piece of garlic.
>
> However the sound I make when saying "hello" is a pressure disturbance
> producing a pressure field in the media NOT a particle field. THere is
> no garlic property attached to the pressure wave picked up by my ear.
>
Here you refer to the other kind of a wave which is a disturbance of a
medium. This is in contrast to the field waves of charges for which we
do not assume something like an aether (at least main stream physics,
since a material aether was abandoned, not by all but by most physicists).
>
> So you are arguing over the fundamental nature of a photon. Is it a
> particle that can carry hidden properties from one place to another.
> Have not Bell's theorem experiments discounted this possibility?
>
Yes, I see a photon as a particle, which has properties. But again: why
hidden? What is hidden here? - Have you noticed that at the LHC of CERN
both big detectors have found indications of a new particle which maybe
a configuration of two photons? Will be wondering what it will be at the
end.
The Bell's theorem experiments are a somewhat different story and
situation. In the experiment of Aspect there are two photons moving in
opposite directions, but being coupled in some way where this coupling
is not limited by the speed of light. How this can happen is still a
secret. QM handles this situation by an equation which covers both
photons at the same time and which ignores the limitation to c. That is
a formal way but of course not at all a physical explanation. (Does QM
ever give us physical explanations?)
The weak point of this problems and of these experiments is that this
funny coupling over distance is not visible at a single event but only
at collection of events, which means that it is the result of some
statistical evaluations. There are fortunately experiments in physics
which are more direct and so better understandable for our imagination
than this experiment.
> best
>
> wolf
>
Best also to you and to all
Albrecht
>
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 6/8/2016 1:34 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> thank you for your response. - My comments again in the text below.
>>
>> Am 04.06.2016 um 20:20 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>
>>> I understand your deductive logic for thinking that photons are
>>> composite, but I think your beginning premise "electric charges can
>>> only interact with other electric charges” is faulty. And although
>>> your second premise “electrons can interact with photons” is
>>> correct, your conclusion "a photon must contain electric charges” is
>>> therefore, like your first premise, also faulty. Electric charges
>>> can interact with electric fields which are not electric charges.
>> What is a field? "Field" is a human abstraction to describe the
>> effect of a charge onto another charge. If we notice that at a
>> specific position in the space is a force acting on a charge, we call
>> this phenomenon a "field". What else is a field? It is the effect of
>> a charge at a certain distance, nothing else. - So, the natural
>> consequence is that if a photon has a field, which means that it has
>> an interaction with a charge, it must contain a charge. Or, what else
>> can the notion of a "field" mean?
>>> For example, an electron is accelerated to radiate a photon. The
>>> electron then annihilates with a positron to produce two photons. So
>>> there are no more electric charges, and only photons remain.
>> I think that this is a quite easy situation. If an electron
>> "annihilates" with a positron then both charges unify to build the
>> photon. - The situation with an accelerated electron is a bit
>> different. If there is enough energy, then obviously a pair of a
>> positive and a negative charge can be built. This generation of pairs
>> of charges also takes place at particle collisions in an accelerator
>> or a storage ring (like the LHC). At each collision a lot of new
>> particles is generated, most of which are charged, so a lot of new
>> pairs of charge is generated.
>>>
>>> Your second explanation also is faulty. No one knows the
>>> composition of a photon. A photon may consist of a single particle
>>> with a helical spatio-temporal movement. For example, my model of a
>>> spin-1 photon is that a photon is composed of a single transluminal
>>> energy quantum (TEQ) moving helically at speed c sqrt(2) but having
>>> a longitudinal speed of c. It has energy E=hf. It has the photon’s
>>> momentum p=h/lambda and it has spin 1 hbar.
>> TEQ? What is energy? In my understanding (which is generally critical
>> about QM) energy is a property of an object, like speed or momentum
>> or spin are properties of an object. You cannot have a piece of
>> velocity somewhere, similarly you cannot have a piece of energy,
>> without having an object which carries this. - I know that in QM
>> energy is something by itself, but just this is a core point of the
>> weirdness of QM in my understanding. And, what is an object? In my
>> understanding candidates for objects are charges, like the electrical
>> charge or the charge of the strong force. A configuration of such
>> charges can build a higher order object. Do we really need more?
>>> Its forward helical angle is 45 degrees for all different energies
>>> of photons. Now I think that this TEQ generates speed-of-light
>>> quantum Huygens wavelets which predict where it will be found in the
>>> future, and which allow the photon to display reflection,
>>> refraction, diffraction, and interference and to go through double
>>> slits as a quantum wave pattern, and yet be detected as a single
>>> localized particle on the other side.
>> What is a wavelet? Not so familiar for me. But phenomena like
>> reflection, refraction, diffraction and interference can be explained
>> by the superposition of oscillating fields which are the extended
>> influences of moving charges. A particle model like the one which I
>> have proposed with mass-less constituents can perfectly explain these
>> phenomena like reflection, diffraction and interference and also the
>> fact that behind a double slit there is still a particle present.
>> This particle existed the entire time, so as it was assumed by de
>> Broglie when he introduced the pilot wave. I think that it is really
>> not necessary to assume all the further properties of nature (like a
>> Huygens wavelet), the situation seems to be much easier. And why
>> should we make it more complicated than necessary?
>>>
>>> Richard
>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>> On Jun 4, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>>>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>
>>>> the experimental evidence that a photon must be a composite object
>>>> happens e.g. in every radio exchange. The photon interacts with
>>>> electric charges, this is only possible if one assumes that the
>>>> photon has electric charge. Now, as it is electrically neutral as a
>>>> whole, there must be a balance of positive and negative electric
>>>> charge(s). Those have to have some separation as otherwise they
>>>> could not react with an outside charge. This is one of the
>>>> indications that a photon has to be composite.
>>>>
>>>> The other way to understand the photon is the way of quantum
>>>> mechanics. In the view of QM the photon is merely a quantum of
>>>> energy. Any further understanding of it is - by the view of QM -
>>>> not possible. To treat a photon physically and quantitatively
>>>> requires the use of the QM formalism, however, (as usual at QM)
>>>> without a direct understanding. - This is the position of QM which
>>>> is formally allows for a point-like photon. But I think that no one
>>>> in our group is willing to follow QM in this respect. All efforts
>>>> undertaken here come from the desire to have a physical
>>>> understanding. And this includes necessarily (in my view) that the
>>>> photon is composite.
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 03.06.2016 um 00:53 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>> My electron model is built of a single circulating spin-1/2
>>>>> charged photon. It is not built “by photons”. I know of no
>>>>> experimental evidence that a photon is a composite particle as you
>>>>> claim. Please cite any accepted experimental evidence that a
>>>>> photon is a composite particle. Thanks.
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 2, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zero evidence for a composite particle? I think that the evidence
>>>>>> for a composite particle model is very obvious:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - The model explains the mass and the momentum of a particle
>>>>>> with NO new parameters, from the scratch
>>>>>> - The model explains the magnetic moment of a particle
>>>>>> classically with no new parameters
>>>>>> - The model explains the constancy of the spin classically
>>>>>> - The model explains the equation E = h*f classically (was never
>>>>>> deduced before)
>>>>>> - The model explains the relativistic increase of mass and the
>>>>>> mass-energy relation E=m*c^2 independent of Einstein's space-time
>>>>>> ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what is the evidence that the electron is NOT a composite
>>>>>> particle? Your electron model is built by photons, where the
>>>>>> photon is also a composite particle. So, what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not know any other particle models with this ability. Do
>>>>>> you? Such properties are taken as a good evidence in physics. Or
>>>>>> why do main stream physics trust in the existence of an up-quark
>>>>>> and a down-quark? For both there was no direct evidence in any
>>>>>> experiment. The reason to accept their existence is the fact that
>>>>>> this assumption makes some other facts understandable. - The
>>>>>> model of a composite particle is in no way weaker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 31.05.2016 um 20:19 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht and all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since there is zero experimental evidence that the electron is
>>>>>>> a composite particle, I will no longer comment on Albrecht's
>>>>>>> electron model, which postulates as a principal feature that the
>>>>>>> electron is a composite particle, unless new experimental
>>>>>>> evidence is found that the electron is a composite particle
>>>>>>> after all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Galileo’s and Newton's “law of inertia" is clearly an
>>>>>>> expression of conservation of momentum of objects or “bodies” in
>>>>>>> the absence of an imposed external net force. It revolutionized
>>>>>>> mechanics because Aristotle had taught otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a resting electron is a circulating light-speed
>>>>>>> electrically charged photon with circulating momentum Eo/c, then
>>>>>>> an external force F on the electron equals the additional rate
>>>>>>> of change of momentum dp/dt of the circulating charged photon
>>>>>>> corresponding to that external force: F=dp/dt , beyond the
>>>>>>> constant rate of change of momentum of the circulating charged
>>>>>>> photon. The ratio of this applied force F (for example due to an
>>>>>>> applied electric field) to the circulating charged photon’s
>>>>>>> additional acceleration “a" is called the electron's inertial
>>>>>>> mass and is defined by F=ma or m=F/a . There is no separate
>>>>>>> mass-stuff or inertia-stuff to be accelerated in a particle.
>>>>>>> There is only the circulating momentum Eo/c of the circling
>>>>>>> speed-of-light particle with rest energy Eo , that is being
>>>>>>> additionally accelerated by the applied force F. Since the
>>>>>>> value m = Eo/c^2 of a resting particle (derived from the rate of
>>>>>>> change of the circulating momentum Eo/c as compared to its
>>>>>>> centripetal acceleration) is the same value in different
>>>>>>> reference frames, it is called the particle’s invariant mass m,
>>>>>>> but this invariant mass m is still derived from the resting
>>>>>>> particle’s internally circulating momentum Eo/c . If the
>>>>>>> electron is moving relativistically at v < c, it has an
>>>>>>> additional linear momentum p=gamma mv, which when added
>>>>>>> vectorially to the transverse circulating momentum Eo/c gives by
>>>>>>> the Pythagorean theorem a total circulating vector momentum
>>>>>>> P=gamma Eo/c = gamma mc=E/c where E is the electron’s total
>>>>>>> energy E=gamma mc^2. This is the origin of the electron’s
>>>>>>> relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4
>>>>>>> which is just another way to write the Pythagorean momentum
>>>>>>> vector relationship above: P^2 = p^2 + (Eo/c)^2 .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my understanding, the Higgs field gives a non-zero
>>>>>>> invariant mass (without being able to predict the magnitude of
>>>>>>> that mass) to certain particles according to the relativistic
>>>>>>> energy-momentum equation, so that any particle moving at v < c
>>>>>>> in a Higgs field has invariant mass m > 0. But the inertia of
>>>>>>> that invariant mass m is not explained by the action of the
>>>>>>> Higgs field, in my understanding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To try to theoretically explain why a photon has momentum p =
>>>>>>> hf/c and energy E=hf is a separate topic beyond trying to
>>>>>>> explain why a particle has inertial mass, or resistance to
>>>>>>> acceleration by an applied force.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 30, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> your new paper has again a lot of nice mathematics. However, it
>>>>>>>> again does not answer the question of inertia. As earlier, you
>>>>>>>> relate the inertial mass of an electron to the mass of the
>>>>>>>> circling photon which builds in your understanding the
>>>>>>>> electron. Then the mass and the momentum of the electron is
>>>>>>>> calculated from the mass and momentum of the photon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Such calculation is of course possible if one follows this
>>>>>>>> picture of an electron. However, it does not answer the
>>>>>>>> question of what the cause of inertia and momentum of the
>>>>>>>> photon is. You take this as an 'a priory' fact. But this is not
>>>>>>>> our present state of understanding. Physics are able to go deeper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You write in your paper: "The fact is that the inertial
>>>>>>>> property of the mass of elementary particles is not
>>>>>>>> understood". How can you write this? Main stream physics have
>>>>>>>> the Higgs model which is assumed to describe the mass of
>>>>>>>> elementary particles. And I have presented a model which uses
>>>>>>>> the fact that any extended object inevitably has inertia. The
>>>>>>>> reason is, as you know, that the fields of the constituents of
>>>>>>>> an extended object propagate with the finite speed of light. If
>>>>>>>> the extension of an elementary particle is taken from its
>>>>>>>> magnetic moment, this model provides very precisely the mass,
>>>>>>>> the momentum, and a lot of other parameters and properties of a
>>>>>>>> particle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you intend to explain the mass of an electron by the mass of
>>>>>>>> a photon, you should have an appropriate explanation of the
>>>>>>>> mass and other parameters of a photon. Otherwise I do not see
>>>>>>>> any real progress in the considerations of your paper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 30.05.2016 um 07:40 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>>>> Hello Vladimir,
>>>>>>>>> Thanks. That could be an explanation. But I’m hoping I can
>>>>>>>>> find a simpler explanation, if possible.
>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 29, 2016, at 7:29 PM, Vladimir Tamari
>>>>>>>>>> <vladimirtamari at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> without going into the details of your model, you mentioned:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "It may be that vector momentum is just not conserved within
>>>>>>>>>> fundamental particles even though it is conserved between two
>>>>>>>>>> or more particles in their mutual interactions"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In cellular-automata schemes, such as myBeautiful Universe
>>>>>>>>>> <http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf>,
>>>>>>>>>> a particle is made up of a pattern of spinning nodes in a
>>>>>>>>>> matrix. The same type of spinning nodes also form
>>>>>>>>>> thesurrounding magnetic, gravitational or electrostatic field
>>>>>>>>>> etc. Any changes in the angular momentum or the axis of spin
>>>>>>>>>> of the constituent nodes of a particle (or photon wave) is
>>>>>>>>>> transmitted as a domino effect adjusting the angular momentum
>>>>>>>>>> of surrounding nodes both internally and externally. The
>>>>>>>>>> domino effect is diffused unto infinity in inverse-square
>>>>>>>>>> fashion. Nothing is hidden or lost or subject to uncertainty,
>>>>>>>>>> and energy is always conserved.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In your case by taking the photon and electron in isolation
>>>>>>>>>> conservation issues seem to be arising? Hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> From: richgauthier at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 17:31:33 -0700
>>>>>>>>>> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>>>> CC: jsarfatti at aol.com
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [General] inertia
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>>>>> I’ve been thinking about the unexplained 0.424 Newtons
>>>>>>>>>> force acting on a circulating double-looped charged photon to
>>>>>>>>>> keep it in its trajectory. Any double-looping-photon electron
>>>>>>>>>> model should have this force acting on the circling photon,
>>>>>>>>>> such John and Martin’s model and Chip’s model. The force
>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t have an obvious source. It continuously changes the
>>>>>>>>>> direction of the circling momentum without changing the
>>>>>>>>>> resting energy of the photon. It may be that vector momentum
>>>>>>>>>> is just not conserved within fundamental particles even
>>>>>>>>>> though it is conserved between two or more particles in their
>>>>>>>>>> mutual interactions. I believe that the Dirac equation
>>>>>>>>>> solution for a free electron hints at this internal
>>>>>>>>>> non-conservation of momentum also during zitterbewegung
>>>>>>>>>> motion of the free electron whose average velocity is v but
>>>>>>>>>> whose eigenvalue for speed is c. The position-momentum
>>>>>>>>>> relations for the double-looped photon model of the electron,
>>>>>>>>>> as I recall, are below or just at the the exact uncertainty
>>>>>>>>>> expression of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: delta x
>>>>>>>>>> times delta p > 1/2 hbar , for position and momentum of an
>>>>>>>>>> object in a particular coordinate direction. So it might not
>>>>>>>>>> be possible to experimentally determine if linear momentum is
>>>>>>>>>> conserved or not within a particle. The indirect evidence
>>>>>>>>>> that there is such circulating momentum in a particle is the
>>>>>>>>>> inertial mass m=Eo/c^2 of the particle as it is derived from
>>>>>>>>>> the photon’s circulating momentum p=Eo/c . If there is
>>>>>>>>>> circling momentum for a single particle, then momentum
>>>>>>>>>> conservation within the particle IS being violated. An
>>>>>>>>>> analogy: just as an electron has spin but it not
>>>>>>>>>> experimentally known what inside it is “spinning", an
>>>>>>>>>> electron has inertial mass but it is not known what inside
>>>>>>>>>> the particle is “massing”. But but the spin and the inertial
>>>>>>>>>> mass are known experimentally. A double-looping photon model
>>>>>>>>>> explains both what is “spinning" and what is “massing" in an
>>>>>>>>>> electron.
>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 27, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Richard Gauthier
>>>>>>>>>> <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>>>>> Jack Sarfatti, a well-known physicist, wrote back to me
>>>>>>>>>> about my article saying that no one cares about this
>>>>>>>>>> work, that it is just re-inventing the wheel and that it
>>>>>>>>>> is not a good problem to work on. Comments?
>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 26, 2016, at 8:25 PM, Richard Gauthier
>>>>>>>>>> <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear John W, Martin, Chandra, Alexander, Chip,
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew, Vivian, Albrecht, John M, David and all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <A New Derivation of E=mc^2 explains a particle's
>>>>>>>>>> inertia.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here’s my latest input to the inertia/particles
>>>>>>>>>> discussion: my proposed new derivation of Eo=mc^2 and
>>>>>>>>>> the inertial mass of a particle from the momentum of
>>>>>>>>>> a circling photon.
>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 17, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Richard Gauthier
>>>>>>>>>> <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>> These newly discovered photons seem very similar
>>>>>>>>>> to helically-moving spin-1/2 charged photons,
>>>>>>>>>> except for their lack of electric charge. Perhaps
>>>>>>>>>> these new spin-1/2 photons become spin-1/2
>>>>>>>>>> charged photons when they curl up in pairs of
>>>>>>>>>> photons with opposite charge, as in e-p pair
>>>>>>>>>> production : "Researchers made their discovery
>>>>>>>>>> after passing light through special crystals to
>>>>>>>>>> create a light beam with a hollow, screw-like
>>>>>>>>>> structure. Using quantum mechanics, the
>>>>>>>>>> physicists theorized that the beam's twisting
>>>>>>>>>> photons were being slowed to a half-integer of
>>>>>>>>>> Planck's constant.”
>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 17, 2016, at 1:56 PM,
>>>>>>>>>> <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>> <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If pbotons weren't confusing enough...just as
>>>>>>>>>> Williams proposed a quantum number for
>>>>>>>>>> energy, these researchers are proposing a
>>>>>>>>>> quantum number for angular momentum.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The article
>>>>>>>>>> Scientists discover new form of light
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/05/17/Scientists-discover-new-form-of-light/9061463490086/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The newly discovered form of light, however,
>>>>>>>>>> features photons with an angular momentum of
>>>>>>>>>> just half the value of Planck's constant. The
>>>>>>>>>> difference sounds small, but researchers say
>>>>>>>>>> the significance of the discovery is great.'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The paper
>>>>>>>>>> There are many ways to spin a photon:
>>>>>>>>>> Half-quantization of a total optical angular
>>>>>>>>>> momentum | Science Advances
>>>>>>>>>> <http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501748.full>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> *From:*Richard Gauthier
>>>>>>>>>> <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles -
>>>>>>>>>> General Discussion
>>>>>>>>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>>>>>>> *Cc:*Alexander Burinskii <bur at ibrae.ac.ru>
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, May 14, 2016 12:30 AM
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] inertia
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello Chandra and all,
>>>>>>>>>> This is very good news. I’ve been
>>>>>>>>>> reading several of Alexander Burinskii’s
>>>>>>>>>> recent (2015 and 2016) published papers
>>>>>>>>>> on his Kerr-Newman bag model of the
>>>>>>>>>> electron (2 pdf’s attached). His approach
>>>>>>>>>> integrates black-hole gravitational
>>>>>>>>>> theory, Higgs theory and electromagnetism
>>>>>>>>>> to produce a internally-light-speed model
>>>>>>>>>> of the electron with radius hbar/2mc like
>>>>>>>>>> John W and Martin’s, Chip’s, Vivian’s and
>>>>>>>>>> my double-looping-photon electron models.
>>>>>>>>>> Alexander's electron model is
>>>>>>>>>> energetically stable, contains a
>>>>>>>>>> circulating light-speed singularity (a
>>>>>>>>>> photon?) in addition to an
>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic wave circling along its
>>>>>>>>>> outer rim along a circular gravitational
>>>>>>>>>> string, has g=2 (Dirac magnetic moment of
>>>>>>>>>> magnitude 1 Bohr magneton), is a fermion
>>>>>>>>>> and carries the electron’s charge. I
>>>>>>>>>> think Alexander’s electron model has much
>>>>>>>>>> to offer, coming from a different
>>>>>>>>>> perspective than much of our group’s
>>>>>>>>>> electron modeling. I request Alexander to
>>>>>>>>>> give us a summary of the key features
>>>>>>>>>> (and perhaps a brief history) of his
>>>>>>>>>> electron model, emphasizing the nature of
>>>>>>>>>> its stability (an important issue in
>>>>>>>>>> circling-photon electron models.) I hope
>>>>>>>>>> that this will stimulate a critical
>>>>>>>>>> discussion of his approach in comparison
>>>>>>>>>> with our various approaches to electron
>>>>>>>>>> modeling, which could lead to better
>>>>>>>>>> light-speed-based electron models coming
>>>>>>>>>> up to the next SPIE “What are photons”
>>>>>>>>>> conference in San Diego in August 2017.
>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 12, 2016, at 6:12 PM,
>>>>>>>>>> Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>>>>>>>>>> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I will request Burinskii to participate
>>>>>>>>>> in our next conference.
>>>>>>>>>> Chandra.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 5 ACTIVE™,
>>>>>>>>>> an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>>>>>>> From: Richard Gauthier
>>>>>>>>>> <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Date: 5/12/2016 2:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
>>>>>>>>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles -
>>>>>>>>>> General Discussion
>>>>>>>>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Burinskii <bur at ibrae.ac.ru>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [General] inertia
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear John W, Martin, Chandra, Vivian,
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew, John M, Chip, Albrecht, Hodge and
>>>>>>>>>> others,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am in contact with the Russian
>>>>>>>>>> physicist and academician Alexander
>>>>>>>>>> Burinskii (arXiv page of his articles
>>>>>>>>>> athttp://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Alexander+Burinskii/0/1/0/all/0/1 ,
>>>>>>>>>> biography
>>>>>>>>>> athttp://www.scirp.org/journal/DetailedInforOfEditorialBoard.aspx?personID=10183 ),
>>>>>>>>>> who has written a very interesting
>>>>>>>>>> article on arXiv: “Gravity vs. quantum
>>>>>>>>>> theory: Is the electron really
>>>>>>>>>> pointlike?” at
>>>>>>>>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0225 . He draws
>>>>>>>>>> on the interesting resemblance of
>>>>>>>>>> Kerr-Newman gravity formulations to the
>>>>>>>>>> properties of the Dirac electron as a
>>>>>>>>>> light-speed particle that can only be
>>>>>>>>>> measured at sub-light speeds. Here’s part
>>>>>>>>>> of the abstract:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Contrary to the widespread opinion that
>>>>>>>>>> gravity plays essential role only on the
>>>>>>>>>> Planck scales, the Kerr-Newman gravity
>>>>>>>>>> displays a new dimensional parameter
>>>>>>>>>> a=ℏ/(2m), which for parameters of an
>>>>>>>>>> electron corresponds to the Compton
>>>>>>>>>> wavelength and turns out to be very far
>>>>>>>>>> from the Planck scale. Extremely large
>>>>>>>>>> spin of the electron with respect to its
>>>>>>>>>> mass produces the Kerr geometry without
>>>>>>>>>> horizon, which displays very essential
>>>>>>>>>> topological changes at the Compton
>>>>>>>>>> distance resulting in a two-fold
>>>>>>>>>> structure of the electron background. The
>>>>>>>>>> corresponding gravitational and
>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic fields of the electron
>>>>>>>>>> are concentrated near the Kerr ring,
>>>>>>>>>> forming a sort of a closed string,
>>>>>>>>>> structure of which is close to the
>>>>>>>>>> described by Sen heterotic string. The
>>>>>>>>>> indicated by Gravity stringlike structure
>>>>>>>>>> of the electron contradicts to the
>>>>>>>>>> statements of Quantum theory that
>>>>>>>>>> electron is pointlike and structureless.
>>>>>>>>>> However, it confirms the peculiar role of
>>>>>>>>>> the Compton zone of the "dressed"
>>>>>>>>>> electron and matches with the known limit
>>>>>>>>>> of the localization of the Dirac electron."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that there some potential for
>>>>>>>>>> Alexander Burinskii's Kerr-Newman gravity
>>>>>>>>>> approach to the electron and the various
>>>>>>>>>> double-looping photon models of the
>>>>>>>>>> electron to find some common ground which
>>>>>>>>>> may benefit both approaches to modeling
>>>>>>>>>> the electron. In particular the
>>>>>>>>>> centripetal force of 0.424 N causing a
>>>>>>>>>> photon of energy 0.511 MeV to move in a
>>>>>>>>>> closed double-looping trajectory of
>>>>>>>>>> radius Ro=hbar/2mc in a resting electron
>>>>>>>>>> model could be related to the
>>>>>>>>>> gravitational and electromagnetic fields
>>>>>>>>>> and gravity stringlike structure of the
>>>>>>>>>> Kerr-Newman electron model.
>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 9, 2016, at 4:37 AM, Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>> Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it is true that we do not know
>>>>>>>>>> everything in physics (otherwise
>>>>>>>>>> there would be no reason for further
>>>>>>>>>> research). However, many facts and
>>>>>>>>>> rules are understood, and I do not
>>>>>>>>>> see a good reason to go behind this
>>>>>>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From my 2-particle model it follows
>>>>>>>>>> for leptons and for quarks that there
>>>>>>>>>> is E = h*ny. The frequency is the
>>>>>>>>>> circulation, the energy follows from
>>>>>>>>>> the mass which the model yields, when
>>>>>>>>>> using E = m*c^2. This latter relation
>>>>>>>>>> also follows from this model. (I have
>>>>>>>>>> presented all this in San Diego; it
>>>>>>>>>> was also discussed here earlier as I
>>>>>>>>>> remember; and it is on my web site
>>>>>>>>>> "The Origin of Mass". Of course I can
>>>>>>>>>> explain it here again if there is a
>>>>>>>>>> demand.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As these relations obviously also
>>>>>>>>>> apply to the photon, it seems very
>>>>>>>>>> plausible that the photon has a
>>>>>>>>>> similar structure like a lepton and a
>>>>>>>>>> quark. The rules apply if c is
>>>>>>>>>> inserted for the speed. This also
>>>>>>>>>> leads to p=h*ny/c.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And which further details do we know
>>>>>>>>>> about the photon? It must have an
>>>>>>>>>> extension as it has a spin which is
>>>>>>>>>> physically not possible without an
>>>>>>>>>> extension. And it must have charges
>>>>>>>>>> as it reacts with an electric field
>>>>>>>>>> which is otherwise not explainable.
>>>>>>>>>> There must be at least two charges, a
>>>>>>>>>> positive and a negative one, as the
>>>>>>>>>> photon as a whole is neutral. The
>>>>>>>>>> spin is twice the one of a lepton or
>>>>>>>>>> a quark, this may be an indication
>>>>>>>>>> that the photon is built by 4
>>>>>>>>>> sub-particles rather than 2 of the
>>>>>>>>>> kind which I have described.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, if the photon has positive and
>>>>>>>>>> negative charges, which means that it
>>>>>>>>>> has sub-particles with positive and
>>>>>>>>>> negative charges, it is quite
>>>>>>>>>> plausible that the photon can
>>>>>>>>>> decompose into a positive and a
>>>>>>>>>> negative elementary particle, so into
>>>>>>>>>> a positron and an electron.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (You may call this speculative. But
>>>>>>>>>> it has some strongly plausible
>>>>>>>>>> aspects which I am missing in the
>>>>>>>>>> other models presented here.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The curling-up which you have
>>>>>>>>>> mentioned has an orbital component.
>>>>>>>>>> To move on an orbit needs some
>>>>>>>>>> physical conditions. E.g. an
>>>>>>>>>> influence which causes the
>>>>>>>>>> acceleration to its center. This
>>>>>>>>>> should be physically explained.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The conflict between the necessary
>>>>>>>>>> Higgs field and the vacuum field in
>>>>>>>>>> the universe is treated in the
>>>>>>>>>> article of F.J. Tipler in
>>>>>>>>>> /arXiv/:/astro/-/ph///0111520v1 ./It
>>>>>>>>>> is well known by particle
>>>>>>>>>> physicists I have at conferences
>>>>>>>>>> hereaskedseveral times the presenters
>>>>>>>>>> of the Higgs model for this
>>>>>>>>>> discrepancy. They have always
>>>>>>>>>> admitted that this conflict exists,
>>>>>>>>>> but some have tried to blame the
>>>>>>>>>> astronomers for it. No one ever has
>>>>>>>>>> presented a solution for the conflict.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 07.05.2016 um 23:32 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>> Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank your for your further
>>>>>>>>>> comments and questions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your are asking me why photons
>>>>>>>>>> have momentum p=hv/c . That’s
>>>>>>>>>> like asking why photons have
>>>>>>>>>> energy E=hv . In physics nobody
>>>>>>>>>> knows “why” anything happens.
>>>>>>>>>> “Why?” questions always lead back
>>>>>>>>>> to a big unknown. Physicists
>>>>>>>>>> observe nature qualitatively and
>>>>>>>>>> quantitatively and search for
>>>>>>>>>> cause-effect relations,
>>>>>>>>>> equations, theoretical models
>>>>>>>>>> and symmetry relations that work
>>>>>>>>>> ("save the appearances"), and
>>>>>>>>>> lead to further and better (more
>>>>>>>>>> accurate) physical predictions
>>>>>>>>>> that often lead to practical
>>>>>>>>>> applications and hopefully deeper
>>>>>>>>>> “understanding” of physical
>>>>>>>>>> phenomena.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You ask why a spin-1/2 photon
>>>>>>>>>> curls up. You could just as well
>>>>>>>>>> ask why a spin-1 photon doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>> curl up, since it has spin. (My
>>>>>>>>>> transluminal energy quantum model
>>>>>>>>>> of a spin-1 photon
>>>>>>>>>> athttps://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron is
>>>>>>>>>> a helical model that is
>>>>>>>>>> consistent with both a photon's
>>>>>>>>>> spin-1 hbar and its forward
>>>>>>>>>> linear momentum p=h/lambda).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your own comments on the
>>>>>>>>>> possible nature and make-up of
>>>>>>>>>> photons are extremely speculative
>>>>>>>>>> to say the least. You have no
>>>>>>>>>> photon model at all. There is
>>>>>>>>>> zero experimental evidence that a
>>>>>>>>>> photon is composite. You should
>>>>>>>>>> at least try to show how a
>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently energetic photon
>>>>>>>>>> leads to your electron model in
>>>>>>>>>> electron-positron pair production.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You claim that astronomers
>>>>>>>>>> deny the existence of a Higgs
>>>>>>>>>> field strong enough to explain
>>>>>>>>>> noticeable forces in elementary
>>>>>>>>>> particles. That is a blanket
>>>>>>>>>> statement that needs supporting
>>>>>>>>>> evidence. Please support your
>>>>>>>>>> claim here with sources. It’s
>>>>>>>>>> like claiming that “scientists
>>>>>>>>>> say”. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 7, 2016, at 10:23 AM,
>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your mail. I
>>>>>>>>>> still have questions to your
>>>>>>>>>> explanations:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To para 1):
>>>>>>>>>> According to you explanations
>>>>>>>>>> the circular motion is mainly
>>>>>>>>>> achieved by the fact that the
>>>>>>>>>> particles are "curling up".
>>>>>>>>>> Which physical law do you
>>>>>>>>>> have in mind that causes them
>>>>>>>>>> to curl up? What are the
>>>>>>>>>> quantitative consequences? -
>>>>>>>>>> You say that there is a
>>>>>>>>>> "configurational" force which
>>>>>>>>>> controls the internal motion
>>>>>>>>>> of an electron and a
>>>>>>>>>> positron. You assume that
>>>>>>>>>> this may come from the Higgs
>>>>>>>>>> field. I think that this is
>>>>>>>>>> highly speculative as
>>>>>>>>>> astronomers deny the
>>>>>>>>>> existence of a Higgs field
>>>>>>>>>> which is strong enough to be
>>>>>>>>>> an explanation for noticeable
>>>>>>>>>> forces in elementary particles.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To para 2):
>>>>>>>>>> The momentum of a photon is
>>>>>>>>>> h*ny/c, true. But what is the
>>>>>>>>>> physical mechanism causing
>>>>>>>>>> this momentum? Still not
>>>>>>>>>> answered.
>>>>>>>>>> I believe that my mass
>>>>>>>>>> mechanism is applicable to
>>>>>>>>>> the photon. The photon has an
>>>>>>>>>> extension, so it has inertia
>>>>>>>>>> by the standard mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>> extended objects. And in
>>>>>>>>>> addition I think that the
>>>>>>>>>> photon may be composed by the
>>>>>>>>>> same sub-particles ("basic
>>>>>>>>>> particles") like leptons and
>>>>>>>>>> quarks. The question still
>>>>>>>>>> open for me is, why the
>>>>>>>>>> photon moves steadily with c.
>>>>>>>>>> An explanation may be that it
>>>>>>>>>> moves always into a certain
>>>>>>>>>> direction with respect to its
>>>>>>>>>> internal set up. On the other
>>>>>>>>>> hand, the fact that the rest
>>>>>>>>>> mass of the photon is zero is
>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than a
>>>>>>>>>> mathematical result. Was
>>>>>>>>>> never measured.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 30 Apr 2016 um
>>>>>>>>>> 17:22:00 schrieb Richard
>>>>>>>>>> Gauthier:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your two
>>>>>>>>>> thoughtful questions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To try to answer them:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) I think it is an
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect assumption that
>>>>>>>>>> only a second electric
>>>>>>>>>> charge or a corresponding
>>>>>>>>>> permanent field can cause
>>>>>>>>>> a spin-1/2 charged photon
>>>>>>>>>> to move in a circular or
>>>>>>>>>> helical configuration.
>>>>>>>>>> Have you considered other
>>>>>>>>>> possible explanations?
>>>>>>>>>> One I have considered, in
>>>>>>>>>> the context of e-p
>>>>>>>>>> production, is that two
>>>>>>>>>> uncharged spin-1/2
>>>>>>>>>> photons of are formed in
>>>>>>>>>> the process of
>>>>>>>>>> electron-positron pair
>>>>>>>>>> production from a spin-1
>>>>>>>>>> photon of sufficient
>>>>>>>>>> energy (greater than
>>>>>>>>>> 1.022 MeV). At first the
>>>>>>>>>> two uncharged spin-1/2
>>>>>>>>>> photons both move forward
>>>>>>>>>> together in a kind of
>>>>>>>>>> unstable equilibrium. One
>>>>>>>>>> has a negative charge
>>>>>>>>>> potentiality and the
>>>>>>>>>> other has a positive
>>>>>>>>>> charge potentiality, yet
>>>>>>>>>> both are still neutral.
>>>>>>>>>> These two uncharged
>>>>>>>>>> spin-1/2 photons can
>>>>>>>>>> either then unite with
>>>>>>>>>> each other to form a
>>>>>>>>>> spin-1 photon, or they
>>>>>>>>>> can separate in the
>>>>>>>>>> presence of a nearby
>>>>>>>>>> charged nucleus and each
>>>>>>>>>> curl up, gaining negative
>>>>>>>>>> and positive charge
>>>>>>>>>> respectively, as well as
>>>>>>>>>> rest mass Eo/c^2, and
>>>>>>>>>> slowing down (as they
>>>>>>>>>> become an electron and
>>>>>>>>>> positron) to less than
>>>>>>>>>> light-speed as they curl
>>>>>>>>>> up. (Internally these
>>>>>>>>>> spin-1/2 charged photons
>>>>>>>>>> maintain light-speed c in
>>>>>>>>>> their forward direction,
>>>>>>>>>> but their curled-up
>>>>>>>>>> configurations as a
>>>>>>>>>> electron and a positron
>>>>>>>>>> have v < c .) Once they
>>>>>>>>>> are both fully curled up
>>>>>>>>>> to form a fully charged
>>>>>>>>>> electron and positron,
>>>>>>>>>> they continue to move
>>>>>>>>>> apart. Now they each have
>>>>>>>>>> a stable internal
>>>>>>>>>> equilibrium (because of
>>>>>>>>>> conservation of electric
>>>>>>>>>> charge) and they cannot
>>>>>>>>>> individually unroll
>>>>>>>>>> (except perhaps
>>>>>>>>>> virtually) to become an
>>>>>>>>>> uncharged spin-1/2
>>>>>>>>>> photon, and so they
>>>>>>>>>> remain a stable electron
>>>>>>>>>> and a stable positron.
>>>>>>>>>> Their own charged
>>>>>>>>>> curled-up stable
>>>>>>>>>> equilibrium maintains
>>>>>>>>>> them in their curled-up
>>>>>>>>>> configurations, supplying
>>>>>>>>>> the necessary
>>>>>>>>>> configurational force
>>>>>>>>>> that maintains their
>>>>>>>>>> circulating motion to
>>>>>>>>>> form an electron or a
>>>>>>>>>> positron. This
>>>>>>>>>> configurational force
>>>>>>>>>> that maintains each of
>>>>>>>>>> them curled up would be a
>>>>>>>>>> non-electrical force.
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps this
>>>>>>>>>> configurational force
>>>>>>>>>> that maintains the
>>>>>>>>>> electron and the positron
>>>>>>>>>> curled up with rest mass
>>>>>>>>>> and moving at less than
>>>>>>>>>> light-speed c, comes from
>>>>>>>>>> the Higgs field.
>>>>>>>>>> When an electron and
>>>>>>>>>> positron meet, they may
>>>>>>>>>> first form a positronium
>>>>>>>>>> atom. Then they both
>>>>>>>>>> uncurl and unite to form
>>>>>>>>>> an unstable neutral
>>>>>>>>>> particle which decays
>>>>>>>>>> immediately into two or
>>>>>>>>>> three spin-1 photons, in
>>>>>>>>>> the process of
>>>>>>>>>> electron-positron
>>>>>>>>>> annihilation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Why does the spin-1/2
>>>>>>>>>> charged photon have
>>>>>>>>>> momentum? you ask. It is
>>>>>>>>>> because it is a photon
>>>>>>>>>> with momentum hv/c . My
>>>>>>>>>> model of the spin-1/2
>>>>>>>>>> charged photon is similar
>>>>>>>>>> to my internally
>>>>>>>>>> transluminal model of an
>>>>>>>>>> uncharged photon, except
>>>>>>>>>> that the spin-1/2
>>>>>>>>>> charged photon makes two
>>>>>>>>>> helical loops instead of
>>>>>>>>>> one per photon
>>>>>>>>>> wavelength, and the
>>>>>>>>>> spin-1/2 charged photon
>>>>>>>>>> model's helical radius is
>>>>>>>>>> 1/2 that of the helical
>>>>>>>>>> radius of a spin-1 photon
>>>>>>>>>> model , being
>>>>>>>>>> R=lambda/4pi instead of
>>>>>>>>>> lambda/2 pi. The uncurled
>>>>>>>>>> transluminal spin-1/2
>>>>>>>>>> uncharged photon model
>>>>>>>>>> curls up nicely into a
>>>>>>>>>> curled-up double-looping
>>>>>>>>>> spin-1/2 charged photon
>>>>>>>>>> model of an electron. You
>>>>>>>>>> can read about my
>>>>>>>>>> superluminal uncharged
>>>>>>>>>> photon model at
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron or
>>>>>>>>>> I can e-mail you a copy.
>>>>>>>>>> I have only talked about
>>>>>>>>>> my current model of the
>>>>>>>>>> superluminal spin-1/2
>>>>>>>>>> charged photon on the
>>>>>>>>>> “Nature of Light and
>>>>>>>>>> Particles” e-list during
>>>>>>>>>> the past year.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hope these possible
>>>>>>>>>> explanations of the
>>>>>>>>>> spin-1/2 charged-photon
>>>>>>>>>> model are helpful. I
>>>>>>>>>> don’t think that you have
>>>>>>>>>> a photon model yet that
>>>>>>>>>> is consistent with your
>>>>>>>>>> two-particle electron
>>>>>>>>>> model, in terms of e-p
>>>>>>>>>> production and e-p
>>>>>>>>>> annihilation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The figure below, which I
>>>>>>>>>> included in this e-list
>>>>>>>>>> some months ago, shows a
>>>>>>>>>> curled-up spin 1/2
>>>>>>>>>> charged photon forming a
>>>>>>>>>> resting electron (top
>>>>>>>>>> graphic) and at different
>>>>>>>>>> increasing relativistic
>>>>>>>>>> speeds (lower graphics).
>>>>>>>>>> The green line is the
>>>>>>>>>> double-looping helical
>>>>>>>>>> trajectory of the
>>>>>>>>>> circulating charged
>>>>>>>>>> photon forming the
>>>>>>>>>> electron, while the red
>>>>>>>>>> line is the trajectory of
>>>>>>>>>> the superluminal energy
>>>>>>>>>> quantum of the spin-1/2
>>>>>>>>>> photon model. The
>>>>>>>>>> superluminal energy
>>>>>>>>>> quantum in the resting
>>>>>>>>>> electron moves on the
>>>>>>>>>> surface of a mathematical
>>>>>>>>>> horn torus. As the speed
>>>>>>>>>> v of the electron model
>>>>>>>>>> increases, the radius of
>>>>>>>>>> the green helical
>>>>>>>>>> trajectory decreases as
>>>>>>>>>> 1/gamma^2 , while the
>>>>>>>>>> radius of the red
>>>>>>>>>> trajectory of the
>>>>>>>>>> superluminal quantum
>>>>>>>>>> decreases as 1/gamma.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>>>>>> Virenfrei.www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive
>>>>>>>>>> communication from the Nature of Light
>>>>>>>>>> and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>>>>>> atrichgauthier at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> <a
>>>>>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive
>>>>>>>>>> communication from the Nature of Light
>>>>>>>>>> and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>>>>>> atdavidmathes8 at yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>> <a
>>>>>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ If you no
>>>>>>>>>> longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>>>>>>>>>> and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>>>>>> atvladimirtamari at hotmail.comClick here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
>>>>>>>>>> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>>>>>> atrichgauthier at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> <a
>>>>>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>>>> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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 phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160609/173d3c66/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list