[General] Proposed photon wave functions

Sun Nov 6 15:00:37 PST 2016

Does anybody know of any early papers on quark masses?  I’m struggling to find anything.  

Regards

John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
Sent: 19 October 2016 02:39
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: 'Mark, Martin van der' <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] Proposed photon wave functions

Dear all,

I refer to the relationship between mass and photons and the nature of mass associated with photons, there are three equations of note:-

E = mc^2, 

E = h𝛎 (I hope 𝛎 shows up as nu) and from that, 

m = h𝛎/c^2. 

One of Einstein's conclusions was that "if theory corresponds to the facts radiation transfers inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies" (Einstein A, An. der Phys., 17, pp 639-641 (1905), translated into English. 

The m in two of the above equations refers to mass. If that mass is not inertial mass, what mass is it and why?

Cheers,,

Vivian Robinson

On 15/10/2016, at 3:54 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> > wrote:

It's electromagnetism, Al. But not as we know it.  

Regards

JohnD

-----Original Message-----
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: 14 October 2016 16:56
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >; Albrecht Giese <phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> >
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Proposed photon wave functions

Hiya Alex,

Agreed! Also ... disagreed!

Agreed about localised photons and the nature of mass and inertia.

Main question is what localises the photon. Indeed!

For you it is "gravity". Good idea. For me it is an extended electromagnetism - the interaction between "mass" and "field" in the new set of linear coupled differential equations. It may be something else - but only one (if any) is what it actually is. 

Lets have some fun and see how far each goes!

Regards, John. 

________________________________________

From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ] on behalf of Burinskii A.Ya. [bur at ibrae.ac.ru <mailto:bur at ibrae.ac.ru> ]

Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 10:00 AM

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Albrecht Giese

Cc: Mark,       Martin van der

Subject: [General] HA:  Proposed photon wave functions

Dear All,

Mass of the photon is zero, but  localized (!) photon has an averaged rest energy  and  turns into Wheeler's geon -- mass without mass.

The question is what localizes photon?

I state -- gravity!  The general opinion is that gravity is very weak. It is true only for spherical gravity - black hole without spin.

However, spin of the electron is for 22 order more its mass (in dimensionless units). I show that spinning Kerr's gravity becomes very strong, and the known Planck scale is shifted for 22 order to Compton scale corresponding to the size of localized photon.

Below  is reference to my recent talk in the Steklov Mathematic Institute (MIAN), in which I show that the spinning gravity is strong and forms a bag. The photon circulates inside the bag similar to a confined quark, forming the known zitterbewegung (more full text is in attachment).

 <http://www.mathnet.ru/php/conference.phtml?confid=791&option_lang=eng> http://www.mathnet.ru/php/conference.phtml?confid=791&option_lang=eng

Yours, Alexander

____________________________

От: Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> ]

Отправлено: 13 октября 2016 г. 1:41

Кому: Albrecht Giese

Копия: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Mark, Martin van der

Тема: Re: [General] Proposed photon wave functions

Albrecht,

   My point is that a photon of momentum E/c = mc moving in a circular path of any radius R will have an inertial mass m, according to my simple analysis. If the photon forms a closed loop whose circumference equals a single photon wavelength h/mc, this will determine the radius R of the loop to be a particular value like hbar/mc and this may then be applicable to a particle particle model like an electron.

     Richard

On Oct 12, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Albrecht Giese < <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de%3cmailto:genmail at a-giese.de> genmail at a-giese.de<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:

Hello Richard,

that are correct equations which you have listed here for Newton's description of mass and its rules. But that does not answer the question what the physical mechanism is, which causes inertia.

You may compare the situation with Galileo's law of free fall. His law was correct, even today it is accepted. But also this law does not give us any information of why an object falls down in a gravitational field. That is a similar situation like Newton's law of motion. We are asking for the next step.

As an explanation for the mechanism of inertia I know two theories. One is the Higgs model, which is believed by main stream but delivers numerical results which are wrong by many orders of magnitude. The other one is the mechanism which I have proposed. It is not accepted by main stream (but by many colleagues outside main stream) and it delivers precise results. In this model the mass depends on the radius (only), and in practise the radius can be determined classically by the magnetic moment if there is electrical charge.

You are saying that the mass is independent of the radius. Here please look at the Bohr magneton.  It says (for the electron)

Magnetic moment =   (e/m) * h(bar)/2. If this magnetic moment is classically calculated on the assumption that an elementary  charge e is orbiting with speed c (which is necessary for dilation), then the magnetic moment depends linearly on the radius. So, m must be inversely proportional to the radius; which is exactly what my model of mass says.

Albrecht

Am 12.10.2016 um 05:37 schrieb Richard Gauthier:

Hello John, Allbrecht and all,

   As you know, I have a different approach to a massive particle's inertial mass. Normal photons don’t have a rest mass but they do have an inertial mass  hf/c^2 as I think Martin at least would agree based on “Light is Heavy”. When a photon model (whether an uncharged photon-like object with spin 1 or a charged photon with spin 1/2) curls up to form an electron model, the photon model still has inertial mass = hf/c^2 which for the electron model is hf/c^2 = Eo/c^2 = mc^2/(c^2) = m. The inertial mass m of a resting electron is conventionally just called the mass m of the electron.

  The electron model's inertial mass m is also derived from Newton’s 2nd law applied internally to the electron model:   F= dp/dt = ma  where  “m” is the circling photon-like-object’s inertial mass, “a" is the circling photon-like-object's centripetal acceleration a = c^2/ R= w^2 R  where R is the radius of the photon-like-object’s circular loop, and  F=dp/dt  is the time rate of change of the photon-like-object's circulating momentum hf/c = Eo/c = mc^2 /c = mc. Here,  dp/dt = pw = mcw (where w is  the angular velocity omega of the circulating photon-like object).

   Solving this Newton’s 2nd law equation gives the circling photon-like-object's inertial mass  m = (dp/dt)/a = (mcw) /( w^2 R) = mc/(w R) =(mc)/c = m which, as above, is the inertial mass of the circulating photon-like object and therefore it is the inertial mass of the particle with mass being modeled (in this case the electron model composed of the circling photon-like-object.) This derived inertial mass m of the circling-photon-like-object electron model is independent of the radius R of the circular loop and independent of whether the loop is a single or double loop.

    Richard

On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:27 PM, Albrecht Giese < <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de%3cmailto:genmail at a-giese.de> genmail at a-giese.de<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:

Dear John,

this can be answered, and it is not too difficult. Look:

Photons do not have a rest mass, true. But they are never at rest. The fact that they have no rest mass is an extrapolation from real existing photons which have some energy (and so mass) to (only theoretically assumed) photons without energy.

And if the photon would be at rest (and so have m = 0) then it would not transfer any momentum. Not so surprising!

It is also simple to show that the angular momentum (spin) is a constant independent from the actual energy of the photon. That can be classically deduced. Also this fact is not in conflict with my statement. Do you want to see it calculated?

Regards, Albrecht

Am 11.10.2016 um 05:50 schrieb John Williamson:

Dear Albrecht,

With the greatest respect, this view is far too simple and you are simply wrong.

Proof: photons are (rest) massless and yet they transfer momentum.

Regards, John.

________________________________

From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> < <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> < <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>]

Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:18 PM

To: Richard Gauthier; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion

Subject: Re: [General] Proposed photon wave functions

Hello Richard,

you are right that inertia and momentum are related to each other. The relation is that inertia is the cause of momentum, without inertia in our world there would be no momentum in our world.

Mathematically spoken: momentum = mass * vector_of_motion. The vector_of motion is a vector, so the product "momentum" is a vector. An explanation of momentum needs the explanation of mass as a precondition. Not the other way around.

Inertial mass can in fact be explained if one accepts that an extended object necessarily has inertia. And as the electron has to be extended (in order to have angular momentum and magnetic moment) it has inertial mass just from this reason. And I like to repeat: the assumption that an extended object has inertia is not only an idea but can be deduced quantitatively with precise results without the use of any free parameters which had to be adjusted.

Albrecht

Am 09.10.2016 um 03:00 schrieb Richard Gauthier:

Hello Albrecht, Vivian and all,

Albrecht: Of course, if you say that an apple is essentially the same as an orange (despite their different properties) then you can also say that inertial mass is essentially the same as momentum (despite their different properties). But inertial mass is not the same as momentum, and apples are not the same as oranges. Inertial mass is a scalar quantity and momentum is a vector quantity, which is fundamentally different. They also have different physical units.  My point is that inertial mass is NOT the same as momentum although they are related. A linearly moving photon has inertial mass hf/c^2 (while having no rest mass) as well as external momentum hf/c. A resting electron has inertial mass m= Eo/c^2 while having no (or minimal) external momentum. In circulating-photon electron models (which your electron model is not), the circulating photon also has inertial mass m=Eo/c^2=hf/c^2 of its circulating photon, and this inertial mass m of a resting electron is called the rest mass m of the electron, or simply the mass m of the electron.

Vivian: I think you are agreeing with Albrecht too quickly. Physicists have been trying hard to understand the nature of inertia since Newton failed to. Mach tried and failed. Several modern physicists such as Einstein, Woodward and Haisch et al have also tried unsuccessfully to explain the nature of inertial mass (the fact that the rest energy stored in a mass m is Eo=mc^2 is NOT in itself an explanation for inertial mass). The Higgs Field (as I understand it) also doesn’t explain inertial mass, although it may explain the origin of a particle's invariant mass as is claimed. Anyway, I won’t accept any explanation from you about particles and inertia as long as you continue to insist that the relativistic kinetic energy of a particle is KE = pc = gamma mv c (instead of the well-known experimentally established formula KE = (gamma - 1) mc^2  ) as you claim on p 13 in your article “A proposal for the structure and properties of the electron” (attached).

    Richard

On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Vivian Robinson < <mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au%3cmailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au> viv at etpsemra.com.au<mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>> wrote:

Richard,

I agree with Albrecht. For a physical relationship between energy and mass through E + mc^2, you have seen my paper on it. Energy is the photon travelling in a straight line. Mass is the same photon confined in a circle of radius equal to half its wavelength. That relationship is directly E = mc^2 and it explains many other properties associated with mass particles.

Mathematics comes in many forms, the same as languages. Not every one is specialised in all forms of mathematics, anymore than everyone is specialises in all languages. Almost all physicists understand physical descriptions. A physical description of the process accompanied by the appropriate mathematics will go a long way towards helping others understanding the message being presented.

Cheers,

Vivian

On 07/10/2016, at 7:39 AM, Albrecht Giese < <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de%3cmailto:genmail at a-giese.de> genmail at a-giese.de<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:

Richard,

you know my objection. Inertial mass and momentum are fundamentally the same physical phenomenon. Just the result of a different application. And so it is no real explanation to explain mass by momentum. Because that means that you explain a physical phenomenon by the same physical phenomenon.

Albrecht

(And you may have a look at  <http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass%3Chttp:/www.ag-physics.org/rmass> www.ag-physics.org/rmass<http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass> )

Am 06.10.2016 um 15:12 schrieb Richard Gauthier:

John and Vivian and others,

   Yes, inertial mass must be defined by F=ma and F=dp/dt as Newton defined it, though he couldn’t explain what causes it. It is caused by a particle’s circling internal momentum, as I derive in  <https://www.academia.edu/25641654/A_New_Derivation_of_Eo_mc_2_Explains_a_Particles_Inertia> https://www.academia.edu/25641654/A_New_Derivation_of_Eo_mc_2_Explains_a_Particles_Inertia , which is attached.

    Richard

On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:49 PM, Vivian Robinson < <mailto:viv at universephysics.com%3cmailto:viv at universephysics.com> viv at universephysics.com<mailto:viv at universephysics.com>> wrote:

John,

Thanks for the advice. I regularly reference Einstein's Ann. der Phys. 17, 639-641 (1905) paper. By mass I have tried to think of it as inertial mass mi, given by F = mi.a. Gravitational mass mg is different by potential energy (PE) divided by c squared (mg = mi - PE/c^2). Rest mass mr is mi measured at velocity = 0 with respect to mi. Relativistic mass mrel is the mass measured at velocity v wrt an observer. Invariant mass doesn't exist because its value depends upon its position wrt an observer, gravitational field and velocity. In practice all mi, mg and mr will be measured the same within experimental error, essentially making them invariant.

IMHO, you are quite correct about aspects of the standard model. There are some very serious problems.

Cheers,

Viv

On 06/10/2016, at 4:08 AM, John Duffield < <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com%3cmailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> johnduffield at btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:

Viv:

Good stuff. I empathize totally.

Re photons and mass, do make sure you call it inertial mass. And/or protect yourself with a reference to Einstein’s E=mc² paper< <https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/>, where the last line reads thus:

“If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies”.

I say this because IMHO the sort of people who bang on about gluons or the 8th spatial dimension will use anything cast aspersions on people like you.

I’ve been doing some major writing recently, and in doing so I’m getting the feeling that there’s more wrong with standard-model physics than people appreciate. Much more.

Regards

JohnD

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org%3cmailto:bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org%3e> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson

Sent: 05 October 2016 09:58

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org%3cmailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>

Subject: Re: [General] Proposed photon wave functions

Rear Richard and others,

I submitted my results to the group in the hope that it would start debate on my topic. Richard I appreciate that you have taken time to make a couple of comments. I would like to add a few points to aid (I hope) further discussion.

First, the so called "standard models" of matter suffer from some disadvantages, not the least of which is the use of invented concepts, e.g. quarks, gluons and strings that have never been separately identified. String theory is one very bad example. It uses several space dimensions that have never been detected along with particles too small to be ever detected to make predictions that don't match observation. However the mathematics is sufficiently complicated that referees are prepared to accept that it may have some future. That is another example of theoreticians being out of touch with reality. I am sure that if their funding body informed them that their salary has been paid  in full in a combinations of strings in the 8th spatial dimension, our universe being the three detectable ones  and they can collect it when they find the eighth dimension and unravel the strings, they would also be the first to complain. Yet they would have us believe that is the origins of the whole universe, not just their salary.

Quarks and gluons are another example. They have never been separately isolated. So Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD) theoreticians developed the concept that the gluon "force" between quarks increases as their separation distance increases. Unfortunately when "satellite" nucleons orbit a nucleus at a "significant distance" where quark separations are quite large, the binding is very weak and the lifetimes of these nuclei are measures immilli seconds. As some QCD practitioners will attest, QCD calculations are not good at matching observation so theoreticians keep changing their model until it does. They have devised 36 quarks, 2 types, 3 generations of each type. three "colours for each generation, plus their anti-particles, plus 8 colours or flavours of gluons, a total of 44 undetected particles, and they still can't get good answers. Again by making their mathematics complex they avoid scrutiny by non experts.

The point is that "standard model" physics has many examples of theoreticians using non detected particles or entities and dimensions, to give unsatisfactory answers to some aspects of experimental observation. Trying to replace those with a further set of hypothetical particles, be they rotars, hods, microvita or faster than light (superluminal) particles does not make their concept any better than those forwarded by standard model practitioners. Being able to match a few physical properties by ascribing specific properties to undetected hypothetical particles is no advance if all it is doing is matching a few local properties.

I am forwarding my work as different. It uses known properties of free space, namely its electric permittivity (ep) and magnetic permeability (mp). It suggests that these facilitate the passage of packets of electromagnetic energy called photons, possibly by being composed of vibrations in ep and mp. John W and I have used different wording to convey the idea that photons convey mass, as was proposed by Einstein in 1905. I feel sure a suitable set of words could be found to describe how those photon oscillations convey that mass. I have presented four wave equations that describe the Einstein-de Broglie wave function psi, along with a physical representation of them.

I describe the angular momentum of photons as being due to the circular wave motion of the electromagnetic field in circularly polarised photons. This implies that plane polarised photons will not have any angular momentum and hence no intrinsic spin. This is able to be checked experimentally. Its rotating centre of mass only travels at sqrt 2 x c for a photon composed of a single wavelength. It is not a super luminal velocity. The centre of mass is a mathematical point that rotates. It is not a physical rotation of a mass traveling faster than c. The mass of the photon is traveling at c in its propagation direction. One might as well say that the wave motion of the electric field is superluminal because it follows a sine curve which has a length longer than the straight line travel of c. That does not mean that its mass is travelling faster than c and therefore all photons are superluminal.

Mathematical points traveling at faster than c is not superluminal travel. There has been an often quoted example of waving a laser into space. If waved fast enough across the dark surface of the new moon, it could be possible to observe the laser point moving across the moon's surface at faster than c. That is a mathematical point moving faster than c. It is not superluminal motion.

I submit that making models of hypothetical particles and ascribing properties to them is not the same as deriving those properties from fundamental considerations. Others are entitled to their own views.

FYI, I have been working on this for three decades. I decided not to publish much of my work, apart from compiling it into some extended manuscripts, complete with ISBNs, that I made available to a few selected friends and interested parties. My career experience was that reviewers and critics have a habit of raising non relevant objections, bogging authors down and slowing further progress.

Chandra, is that the kind of paper you would like presented at your next SPIE conference? It will be more advanced by then.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson

On 29/09/2016, at 11:25 PM, Richard Gauthier < <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com%3cmailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello Vivian, Chip and others,

   The derivations of the radius R=lambda/2pi of my internally superluminal photon model and the corresponding 45-degree forward angle of the photon model's internal helical trajectory are given in Section 5, equations 8 through 17 in my published 1996 article “Microvita: A new approach to matter, life and health”, which I attach and which is available from Springer and at  <https://www.academia.edu/28777551/Microvita_A_New_Approach_to_Matter_Life_and_Health> https://www.academia.edu/28777551/Microvita_A_New_Approach_to_Matter_Life_and_Health. My internally-double-looping model of the electron is also presented quantitatively there in Section 6. The electron model there has evolved into my SPIE relativistic spin-1/2 charged-photon electron model since then. It follows directly from the photon model's helical angle of 45 degrees that the internal speed of the photon model is c sqrt(2), which I state explicitly in my published 2007 article “FTL quantum models of the photon and the electron”, attached below and available from STAIF-2007 and at  <https://www.academia.edu/4429837/FTL_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron> https://www.academia.edu/4429837/FTL_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron .

     Richard

<Microvita A New Approach to Matter Life and Health.pdf> <FTL Quantum Models of the Photon and the Electron.pdf>

On Sep 24, 2016, at 8:34 AM, Richard Gauthier < <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com%3cmailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello Vivian,

   I’ve gone through your new article on the photon and it looks interesting. I appreciate that your photon model is now internally superluminal with an internal helical speed of c sqrt(2) and an effective radius of lambda/2pi. Your photon model has similarities to Chip’s model of the photon in this and other respects and I’m surprised that you didn’t reference his work. I would be interested to see a comparison between your photon model and Chip’s. I’d also like to hear Chip’s comments on your photon model.

     Richard

On Sep 22, 2016, at 8:55 PM, Vivian Robinson < <mailto:viv at universephysics.com%3cmailto:viv at universephysics.com> viv at universephysics.com<mailto:viv at universephysics.com>> wrote:

Hodge,

It would still be best if you sent the article. I (finally) accessed some of your STOE articles but could not find mse42my.pdf. I am not exactly sure to what you are referring.

Some aspects of your work have commonality with mine. I use detectable photons as the basis of everything, you use hods. We are both trying to show that everything follows from that one particle. I prefer my approach because photons are detectable and have properties to which my work must comply. The wave functions in my article are their restriction. Like you I prefer Newtonian mechanics to relativity and quantum mechanics. There are many observations that confirm relativity and quantum mechanics that don't match Newtonian mechanics. My work must match those observations.

I have found that the toroidal (John W and Martin vdM) or rotating photon (Viv  R) model of an electron is one in which an electron consists of a photon of the appropriate energy (? 0.511 MeV at rest) makes two revolutions in one wavelength. It is this that gives the electron spin (angular momentum) of half hbar. The E - mc^2 relationship between mass and energy is mass is the photon rotating twice within its wavelength. Unlock its angular momentum gives it energy E = mc^2. As the particle moves its structure means that it is automatically subject to the special relativity corrections of mass, length and time. I make mention of other properties, although as Richard G pointed out, my derivation of the magnetic moment of the electron was in error in that paper. I have now corrected that.

I suggest that all other particles, stable or otherwise, are composed of appropriate rotating photons and have derived the structure and properties of many of them based upon that model. If this is the structure of all matter, the special relativity corrections are due to the rotating photon being "stretched" as it moves. They are not some mathematically imposed restriction.

You will find that when you apply Newtonian mechanics to a photon with those waveforms and mass, you get Einstein's general theory of relativity for space outside matter, ie, gravity as we know it. The exception is that there is no singularity at the Schwarzschild radius and therefore no black holes. That doesn't prevent the existence of massive objects, which is all astronomers are detecting. It is the theoretical physicists who call them black holes. Astronomical measurements are still thousands of times less accurate than required to distinguish between my metric and the Schwarzschild metric. I am confident that when they do improve, my metric, with the gravitational singularity at the centre of mass and not at the Schwarzschild radius, will hold.

You will then recognise that gravity is not inverse square law. If you studied Newton's Principia you will see that he also worked out what would happen if gravity was stronger or weaker than inverse square law. His observations showed that the planets were following the trajectories predicted by the inverse square law calculations, leading to the conclusion that gravity is controlled by inverse square. However, not all observations follow the inverse square law. Conclusion - gravity is not inverse square.

The only reason the Big Bang theory was accepted was because early calculations showed that, if gravity was inverse square law, an infinite static universe would collapse in on itself through gravitational attraction. That clearly hasn't happened. Einstein tried to overcome it with his cosmological constant. His field equations only allowed for an expanding or collapsing universe. Since forwarding the Big Bang theory, they have done everything to match a new observation into that theory, ignoring the other possibility. If gravity isn't inverse square, other possibilities exist.

Again, using Newtonian mechanics to the structure of the photon I propose, shows that gravity is either inverse square law or stronger for space outside matter: Or inverse square law or weaker for space inside matter, something that applies to the structure of the universe as a whole. If you have a universe in which gravity is weaker than the inverse square law by an amount predicted from my photon's wave function, then an infinite static universe will not collapse under gravitational influence. Photons from distant galaxies will still be redshifted, as observed. Things like gravitational lensing still occur, although I am not convinced that everything forwarded as gravitational lensing is actually gravitational lensing.

Forget the Big Bang theory. Therefore no inflation (straight after the Big Bang). Dark matter is required to explain the more rapid rotation of galaxies. Based upon other aspects of inverse square law, galaxies and even clusters of galaxies would be expected to rotate about their centre of mass much faster than is determined from gravity alone. The detected components in galaxies will cause them to rotate significantly faster than predicted from either Newtonian or Relativistic gravity. That statement can be justified by experimental evidence (courtesy of Uncle Sam whose work is much appreciated at least by this author) beyond the mere detection of more rapidly rotating galaxies. Forget about dark matter.

As for dark energy, it is based upon the observation of apparently anomalous type 1a supernovae (SNe1a) intensities. In order to match the observed SNe1a intensities to my work I need our galaxy to be in a region of space with a density of about 10^-24 kg/m^3. This is about 1,000 times the density required under the Big Bang theory for the universe to exist in its current form some 23.8 billion years after the Big Bang. But there are many problems with that figure.

The odds of the universe having this structure 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang are about 1 : 10^60. (I doubt that any Big Bang proponent would risk his/her money when she/he had only 1 : 1000 chance of winning. If they are, I am prepared to wager against as many as are prepared to show their faith in low odds.) Yet they expect us to believe the whole universe exists because of 1 : 10^60 odds and we are the one universe in over 10^60 other universes in the multiverse. Talk about having lost touch with reality. Another feature is that a "quick" (i.e., long and involved) calculation will show that the density of the visible universe is higher than ? 10^-27 kg/m^3. Thirdly, for an expanding universe in which there is only light from up to 13.8 billion light years distance, there are far too many stars visible in the Hubble Extreme field images (again, thanks Uncle Sam). I am sure some of you can think of other observations as well.

Going back to dark energy. In order to match the observed SNe1a intensities, my model requires a local (< 10^8 LYs radius) density of just over 1 x 10^-24 kg/m^3, dropping down to a background average of ? 8 x 10^-26 kg/m^3. Or another effect I haven't yet included. Both of these figures are much higher than the "official" (i.e. matches their theory) value of ? 10^-27 kg/m^3. A brief look at the stars in our local region, ? 10^6 LYs radius, gives the number of sun mass stars, ? 200 x 10^9 for Milky Way, ? 300 x 10^9 Andromeda, and others, gives a star mass density approaching 10^-25 kg/m^3. Here is where astronomers are a little vague. The mass of galaxies is usually quoted in terms of number of stars of the same mass as our sun (luminous matter). They also add to that figure, the observation that the average galaxy has about ten times as much matter in a gas and dust cloud surrounding the galaxy (non luminous matter) as there is luminous matter. Adding the mass of the non luminous matter to the mass of the luminous matter, if it isn't already included, gets me close to 10^-24 kg/m^3. I admit I am not quite there. I am not out by as much as a factor of 24 times the observed mass of the universe and that is without dark matter to make the galaxies rotate faster than they should under gravity alone.

There are many other problems associated with the Big Bang theory. Just think about the additional mass a galaxy must have to a receding velocity that gives a redshift of 10. Perhaps you know a few more of them.

In summary, I believe the photon model just forwarded can be used with the rotating photon or toroidal electromagnetic field structure of matter and Newtonian mechanics give a continuity between quantum "weirdness" and special and general relativity. Much of what is called quantum "weirdness" can be explained by the structures of the photon and the particles composed of rotating or toroidal photons. Yes they need refinement, but we have to start somewhere. As I said, the object of my communication was to have a general discussion on the nature of light and particles.

I append my paper on the electron structure FYI.

Regards,

Vivian Robinson

<Proposed electron structure.pdf>

On 23/09/2016, at 1:08 AM, Hodge John < <mailto:jchodge at frontier.com%3cmailto:jchodge at frontier.com> jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>> wrote:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20161106/519f736b/attachment.htm>