[General] HA: Proposed photon wave functions

Fri Oct 14 09:54:52 PDT 2016

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

Regards
JohnD

-----Original Message-----
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.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>; Albrecht Giese
<phys at a-giese.de>
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <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.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Burinskii A.Ya. [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

Yours, Alexander

________________________________
От: Richard Gauthier [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
<genmail at a-giese.de<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de
<mailto: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
<genmail at a-giese.de<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de
<mailto: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.natureoflightandparticl
es.org<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureofli
ghtandparticles.org>] on behalf of Albrecht Giese
[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
<viv at etpsemra.com.au<mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au
<mailto: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
<genmail at a-giese.de<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de
<mailto: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
www.ag-physics.org/rmass<http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass
<http://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_Par
ticles_Inertia , which is attached.
    Richard

On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:49 PM, Vivian Robinson
<viv at universephysics.com<mailto:viv at universephysics.com
<mailto: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
<johnduffield at btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com
<mailto: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=mc^2
paper<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.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org<mailto:bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandp
articles.org>]On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
Sent: 05 October 2016 09:58
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureofli
ghtandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.nat
ureoflightandparticles.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
<richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com
<mailto: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_an
d_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_El
ectron .
     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
<richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com
<mailto: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
<viv at universephysics.com<mailto:viv at universephysics.com
<mailto: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
<jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com
<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com> >> wrote:

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at
viv at universephysics.com<mailto:viv at universephysics.com
<mailto:viv at universephysics.com<mailto:viv at universephysics.com> >
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.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
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> >
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&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<mailto:phys at a-giese.de
<mailto:phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de> >
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<http://list
s.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticle
s.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

[X]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>    Virenfrei.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=li
nk&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
<http://www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_s
ource=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> >
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at
viv at etpsemra.com.au<mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au
<mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au<mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au> >
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?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
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> >
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

[X]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>    Virenfrei.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=li
nk&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
<http://www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_s
ource=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> >

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>  <a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20161014/e2912625/attachment.htm>