[General] FW: Compton and de Broglie wavelength
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Tue Jan 23 19:52:04 PST 2018
Albrecht:
Thank you. good review, I'm always impressed with your references to
Plato and then subsequent rejection of his ideas.
Positivism says there must be no unobservable phenomena in a theory. Did
not Carnap define two types of symbols 'Observable' and "theoretical" ,
did not Wittgenstein define "use" symbols. Have actually ever seen a
force or light? Standard physics is full of inferences which are deduced
from the experiences we do see.
Is not space defined by coordinate frames built of phase measurements?
In Fynman's lectures there is a good description. One builds a cube of
clocks spaced by identical wave lengths distances and satisfying
euclidean geometry. A mass is brought close. An interaction between
gravity and EM objects happens. The phases are shifted Einstein
interprets them as space warping. It is not spce but our
parameterization of space - that is what I mean by looking through a
coordinate frame
best wishes
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 1/23/2018 8:35 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> I think that I can understand both, Lorentz and Einstein. Lorentz has
> followed the classical physics like Newton and Maxwell. He wished to
> explain the Michelson-Morley experiment and he found that the results
> of Maxwell together with an assumption about matter, which seemed
> plausible to him, provided a classical explanation.
>
>
> Einstein did not follow Lorentz. Why not? I see three reasons.
> Firstly, the assumption about matter (as built by molecules and bound
> by electrical fields) seemed implausible and not serious physics at
> that time (but was found to be true around 1916). And secondly it was
> a consequence of his education in a school which related to ancient
> Greek philosophers (like Plato). In this school the thinking of those
> philosophers was understood to be more spiritual and so at a higher
> level. Einstein hated this school and he left it early, but he was
> already infected. (I was in the same type of school and I know this
> spirit.) The use of a principle rather physical laws was taken as the
> dominance of Plato over Newton, and it did have a higher ranking. A
> third reason was also Einstein's relation to philosophy. He followed
> the positivism. Positivism says that we anyway cannot "understand" the
> world but can only describe it. And that included that there must be
> no unobservable phenomena in a theory. The approach of Lorentz needed
> an ether and that was not observable. - Later Einstein rejected this
> thinking and he should have redeveloped relativity. But unfortunately
> he did not.
>
>
> What about space? In the view of Lorentz the space is essentially
> emptiness, it has no properties. But it can of course be filled with
> something. In the view of Einstein the space has properties (for
> instance can change its shape, can be the origin of fields). - You
> want to combine both concepts. How can this work? I have no idea. You do?
>
>
> But in general: space has in my view nothing to do with coordinate
> systems. As said earlier: a coordinate system is a mathematical
> concept which helps us for some determinations. It is no physics. To
> say it in a different way: a particle reacts with a field. A particle
> "has no idea" what a coordinate is. The only physical phenomenon in
> this sense is a "distance". As it (beside others) causes the strength
> of a field. But not a coordinate. Maybe we should eliminate the word
> "coordinate" from our discussion.
>
>
> Albrecht
>
>
>
>
> Am 22.01.2018 um 00:04 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> You constantly talk of physicists not accepting earlier concepts of
>> fields and matter. Do you not think that politics could have had a
>> lot to do with it?
>>
>>
>> Of course this is fits my fundamental belief that the physics of the
>> observer is as important in science and has been neglected.
>>
>>
>> When comparing Einstein and Lorenz I believe it is not an either or,
>> but rather a synthesis of both that will lead us in the right
>> direction. Lorenz's view that contraction and dilation is a general
>> property of fields in a fixed background space makes sense to me. But
>> Einstein's view that space is defined by the coordinate frame is also
>> true.
>>
>> The synthesis of the two is that space and time is a personal
>> sensation defined by the coordinate frame we all look through to
>> interact with the world so the background space has always been the
>> mental display space, which prior to Einstain was assumed to be an
>> independent objective reality.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps we should follow the synthesis route and not argue abou who
>> is right or wrong but see there are many contributors to progress
>>
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 1/21/2018 4:26 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chip,
>>>
>>> thank you for your answer and for the attached paper. I respond to
>>> your answers in the text below.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your paper is a very long one. So it will take me some time to read
>>> it. At present I am in preparation for a conference, so I ask you
>>> for some patience.
>>>
>>>
>>> But when I look into your introduction, you say that *modern physics
>>> (here **relativity**) has changed our view of space and tim*e. You
>>> say that the three-dimensional Euclidean space was replaced by the
>>> four-dimensional space time.
>>>
>>>
>>> This latter is true if you follow Einstein which respect to his
>>> interpretation of relativity. But looking into history: are you
>>> aware that some time before Einstein (about 15 years) Hendrik
>>> Lorentz, Joseph Larmor, and others have already developed a theory
>>> of *special relativity*? And their theory continued to use the
>>> Euclidean space of 3 dimensions. We know that their approach was not
>>> accepted by Einstein nor by the other physicists at that time. The
>>> reason was that Lorentz and the others have made assumptions about
>>> the structure of solid matter and of elementary particles. That was
>>> not the view of physics at that time and so seemed to be not a
>>> serious approach. However, these physicists (Lorentz at al.) have
>>> been ahead of their time. 11 years, after Einstein published special
>>> relativity, the assumptions of Lorentz about matter became the
>>> general understanding, And about 20 (or 25) years after Einstein
>>> their assumptions about particles physics became main stream. So, if
>>> Einstein would have waited a few years more before developing
>>> relativity he would not have seen the need for his assumptions about
>>> space-time.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, my idea is to go back to Lorentz and the others as their
>>> fundamental assumptions are now the main stream understanding. Why
>>> should we make physics (and here relativity) more complicated as it is.
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 08.01.2018 um 23:56 schrieb Chip Akins:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Albrecht
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your email.
>>>>
>>>> Please see comments embedded below.
>>>>
>>>> Warmest Regards
>>>>
>>>> Chip
>>>>
>>>> *From:*General
>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>>> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 08, 2018 2:07 PM
>>>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] FW: Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chip,
>>>>
>>>> I am sorry that I almost forget to answer this contribution of you
>>>> which you have sent some time ago. But I should answer anyway and I
>>>> still have some questions to your explanations and your calculations.
>>>>
>>>> Am 18.11.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Chip Akins:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Albrecht
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your comment. I am sure that I was not very
>>>> clear with the explanation.
>>>>
>>>> First, yes the ratio of the force of electric charge to the
>>>> strong force is alpha, the fine structure.
>>>>
>>>> And yes, Somerfield did discover that the spectral distribution
>>>> of hydrogen is related to this same constant, the fine structure.
>>>>
>>>> But this is still an open question for me. It was always assumed
>>>> (and accepted) that the electrons in an atom are bound to the
>>>> nucleus by the electric force. So the electric bound causes the
>>>> orbits of the electrons. If there is now a change (even if a small
>>>> one) of the orbits described by alpha and on the other hand alpha
>>>> is the ratio of the electric force to the strong force, then also
>>>> the strong force has to influence the orbit. In which way would
>>>> this happen?
>>>>
>>>> I think you are correct in the assumption that electrons are bound
>>>> to atoms by the force of charge. My belief is that the force of
>>>> charge is actually caused by the strong force and there is some
>>>> compelling argument in favor of this. A more complete explanation
>>>> for my thoughts on this and other items is included in the
>>>> attached. Electric charge is discussed beginning on page 18 (but
>>>> addressed in many places in various ways.) Hopefully this paper
>>>> will explain why I think charge is caused by the strong force.
>>>>
>>> Does that mean that the electrical charge and the strong force are
>>> the same on your view? Or related in some way? One can compare the
>>> electrical forces in the nucleus and the strong forces there and
>>> they are clearly different. The stability of a nucleus depends on
>>> the relation of both. How do you explain that?
>>>
>>> I had a look into your paper regarding the electrical charge. I
>>> understand that you deduce a general force from energy. Here I think
>>> that you are putting things upside down. I think that forces are
>>> fundamental, and energy is the consequence of the existence of
>>> forces, not the other way around. one can say it even stronger:
>>> Energy is a human concept to describe specific reactions in physical
>>> processes in a convenient way. We should remember: before the
>>> "conservation of energy" was detected in thermodynamic processes, no
>>> one had the idea to use the term "energy". But in these processes it
>>> turned out to be practical for the determination of processes. To
>>> make a stronger statement: one could doubt that the physical nature
>>> "knows" what energy is.
>>>
>>> Another point here: you have a long chapter to say what the magnetic
>>> force is in contrast to the electric force. Since we have detected
>>> relativity, we know that magnetism in nothing different than
>>> electricity. It is only a specific view onto an electrical process
>>> under the consideration of special relativity. One could say: as
>>> soon as we think about fundamental physical processes and not about
>>> technical processes, it would be better not to use the notion of
>>> magnetism in any way but to refer to the originating electrical field.
>>>>
>>>> So it has become common to assume that the orbitals of atoms
>>>> are quantized, and a function of that quantization is the fine
>>>> structure constant, which then naturally yields the spectral
>>>> distribution we measure (for hydrogen for example).
>>>>
>>>> Again the same question: how does the influence of the strong force
>>>> can enter here physically?
>>>>
>>>> Same answer as above.
>>>>
>>> I think that it is clearly proven that both forces are different.
>>> See above.
>>>>
>>>> This is a commonly discussed concept. The circumference of an
>>>> orbital is an integral number of de Broglie wavelengths of an
>>>> electron (with a velocity which is a function of α*c/n) and an
>>>> orbital circumference which is the de Broglie wavelength at
>>>> each of those velocities times the same integer n. dbWL*n
>>>> Where n is 1, 2, 3...
>>>>
>>>> Again: how can alpha influence the velocity here if part of it is
>>>> the strong force? And why is the velocity of the electron
>>>> proportional to α*c/n?
>>>> Regarding the last part of this question “why is the velocity of
>>>> the electron proportional to α*c/n?” I think this is a very good
>>>> question, but one for which I have not found a convincing answer
>>>> yet. I think it must be related to the interaction of the zitter
>>>> frequencies of the nucleus and the zitter of the electron which
>>>> causes the orbital radius, and therefore the velocity.
>>>>
>>>> But I found that a /beat frequency is naturally created by the
>>>> orbiting electron at those velocities/, and the wavelength of
>>>> that beat frequency is exactly ¼ the de Broglie wavelength. So
>>>> while this exploration did not discover a mechanism which
>>>> created the de Broglie wavelength, it did yield a harmonic of
>>>> the de Broglie wavelength which is naturally caused. I simply
>>>> calculated the inner and outer Doppler shifted frequencies of
>>>> the electron with a radius of 1.9 X 10-13m and circulating
>>>> (orbiting) at the radius 5.29177266E-11 m, and**then took the
>>>> difference of those two frequencies.
>>>>
>>>> How are these two frequencies calculated?
>>>> These two frequencies are calculated fairly simply. The radius of
>>>> the orbital is 5.29177266E-11 m, (dbwl/2pi) and the radius of the
>>>> electron is 1.93079654122163E-13 m. So the velocity of the outer
>>>> radius of the electron is greater than the inner radius. This
>>>> difference in velocity causes a non-relativistic (because the
>>>> velocity is low) Doppler shift of the zitter frequency of the
>>>> electron, with one frequency higher than the other based on the
>>>> velocity difference. The difference frequency causes a wavelength
>>>> which is ¼ the de Broglie wavelength. Note: on the side of the
>>>> electron which is outside of the orbital radius the electron the
>>>> frequency source is advancing and on the inner side the electron
>>>> frequency source is retreating due to the intrinsic spin of the
>>>> electron. So the two Doppler equations are…
>>>>
>>>> (c+vouter/c)*zitter and (c-vinner/c)*zitter and the
>>>> wavelength calculated is 8.31229706155041E-11 m
>>>>
>>>> Vouter is alpha c (Orbital radius + Electron radius)/Orbital radius.
>>>>
>>>> Vinner is alpha c (Orbital radius - Electron radius)/Orbital radius.
>>>>
>>> Questions:
>>> o If you calculate a Doppler frequency, which is the position of
>>> the observer who gets this frequency? Because Doppler depends on the
>>> state of the observer.
>>> o How does the difference of two frequencies cause a wavelength? If
>>> there is a beat frequency generated, what is the speed of the
>>> according wave in your case?
>>>>
>>>> (Note: the zitter frequency of the electron is Sqrt(2)c/(2pi r))
>>>> =3.49477580412838E+20Hz. An explanation for this zitter frequency
>>>> is also given in the attached.
>>>>
>>>> This calculation yielded a frequency with a wavelength of ¼ the
>>>> de Broglie wavelength. I then simplified all of the operations
>>>> of the equations used to do the Doppler calculation and arrived
>>>> at the simplified equation for this wavelength: wl =
>>>> c/(2*alpha*Zitter). And then orbital circumference is a
>>>> quantized value which can be expressed as (4n*c)/(2*alpha*Zitter).
>>>>
>>>> If you calculate the de Broglie wavelength from the frequency you
>>>> have to use the phase speed of the de Broglie wave. This phase
>>>> speed is normally (for object velocities clearly lower than c) a
>>>> large multiple of c. Where did you determine the phase speed and
>>>> where did you use it in your calculations? - And how is Zitter
>>>> determined?
>>>>
>>>> I did not calculate the de Broglie wavelength. I calculated a
>>>> wavelength of a difference frequency (beat frequency) which
>>>> turns out to be exactly ¼ the de Broglie wavelength. Therefore
>>>> there was no need to calculate phase velocity in such a
>>>> derivation. If you are still interested in why I suggest the
>>>> zitter frequency of the electron is higher than normally
>>>> assumed we can also discuss that.
>>>>
>>> You are correct regarding the de Broglie wavelength. But above you
>>> calculate again the wavelength of a frequency. What does that mean
>>> now, which speed of the wave is assumed (as I asked earlier above)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chip
>>>>
>>>> Again, sorry to be so late
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*General
>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>>> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, November 18, 2017 3:02 PM
>>>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] FW: Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chip,
>>>>
>>>> I have a problem to understand your equations in one point. You
>>>> are using alpha in the formula for stable orbits in an atom.
>>>> However alpha was introduced by Sommerfeld to explain the fine
>>>> structure in some spectra. That is in my understanding very
>>>> different from your use. Why do you have it?
>>>>
>>>> A more recent understanding sees alpha as the relation between
>>>> the electrical and the strong force. Is this the basis for your
>>>> equations?
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>> Am 12.11.2017 um 23:24 schrieb Chip Akins:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Albrecht
>>>>
>>>> Sorry I made an error in the email below.
>>>>
>>>> This version has been corrected.
>>>>
>>>> Chip
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Chip Akins [mailto:chipakins at gmail.com]
>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2017 4:17 PM
>>>> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> *Subject:* RE: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>>>>
>>>> Hi Albrecht
>>>>
>>>> Yes. The alpha I used is the fine structure constant.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that the equations I sent did not show up
>>>> correctly in the email when returned. The divisions were
>>>> missing. Copied and corrected below…
>>>>
>>>> As it turns out one derivation for this wavelength for each
>>>> orbital can also be expressed as:
>>>>
>>>> /λm = n c/2α f/Ze
>>>>
>>>> Where /n/ = 1, 2, 3… and /f_Ze / is the Zitter frequency of
>>>> the electron.
>>>>
>>>> Of course the de Broglie frequency for this electron would
>>>> then just be/λ/db /= h / m v = 4c/2α f/Ze. Where /f_Ze /
>>>> is the Zitter frequency of the electron:
>>>>
>>>> So that the de Broglie wavelength for the quantized
>>>> orbitals are:
>>>>
>>>> /λ/db /= 4n c/2α f/Ze
>>>>
>>>> Where /n/ = 1, 2, 3…
>>>>
>>>> Chip
>>>>
>>>> *From:*General
>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>>> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2017 3:54 PM
>>>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chip,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> thanks for your answer. My question:
>>>>
>>>> Does the electron in the orbit see a magnetic field? I do
>>>> not know why it should. If there is only one electron in
>>>> the orbit it would have a magnetic field if seen from the
>>>> outside. But the particle itself cannot see a magnetic
>>>> field caused by itself. - We should always be aware of the
>>>> fact that a magnetic field is not an independent force but
>>>> an apparent force seen if an electrical charge is moving.
>>>> This is caused by relativistic effects like the propagation
>>>> time of the electrical field.
>>>>
>>>> A special case in the hydrogen atom is the ground state of
>>>> the atom. In this state the electron does not have an
>>>> orbital momentum. It moves forth and back through the
>>>> nucleus. In this special situation there is not at all a
>>>> reason for a magnetic field, even if seen from the outside.
>>>>
>>>> For your calculation another question of mine: What does
>>>> your factor alpha mean? Does it have to do with the fine
>>>> structure constant?
>>>>
>>>> And a comment to the Zitterbewegung, which is often
>>>> understood as quite mysterious. The electron has an
>>>> internal oscillation with speed c. This oscillation which
>>>> is common for all elementary particles is the cause of
>>>> relativistic dilation. It was already assumed by Lorentz /
>>>> Poincare prior to Einstein. But at that time this
>>>> assumption was not taken as serious. In 1930 it was
>>>> re-detected by Schrödinger when he analysed the
>>>> relativistic Dirac function. - And this motion has to be a
>>>> circular one, otherwise the electron would not have a spin
>>>> and a magnetic moment.
>>>>
>>>> For the rest of your calculations I need a bit more time to
>>>> understand them. It will take some days because I am just
>>>> on travel. So I kindly ask you for patience.
>>>>
>>>> Greetings
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>> Am 10.11.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Chip Akins:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Albrecht
>>>>
>>>> I was recently reviewing the de Broglie hypothesis and
>>>> comparing that to conditions found in the hydrogen atom.
>>>>
>>>> Andre has shown how the force (8.238722E-08) of
>>>> magnetic and electric fields are equal at this
>>>> particular orbital radius (5.29177E-11m)
>>>>
>>>> But I have not yet understood the magnetic field force
>>>> vector compared to the electric field force vector in
>>>> this orbit, or exactly how the interaction of magnetic
>>>> and electric field components could quantize each of
>>>> the respective orbitals of the hydrogen atom.
>>>>
>>>> However I did find that there is a wavelength naturally
>>>> generated by the motion of the electron in this orbit
>>>> which provides for a wavelength which is precisely ¼
>>>> the de Broglie wavelength for an electron at this
>>>> velocity (α c). If we take the Zitter frequency with
>>>> motion at velocity for the orbital radius plus the
>>>> electron radius and subtract from that the Zitter
>>>> frequency with motion at velocity for the orbital
>>>> radius minus the electron radius, we obtain a
>>>> wavelength for the difference frequency which is
>>>> exactly ¼ the de Broglie wavelength. I am sure this
>>>> must have been seen before.
>>>>
>>>> As it turns out one derivation for this wavelength for
>>>> each orbital can also be expressed as:
>>>>
>>>> /λm=n c2α f/Ze
>>>>
>>>> Where /n/ = 1, 2, 3… and /f_Ze / is the Zitter
>>>> frequency of the electron.
>>>>
>>>> Of course the de Broglie frequency for this electron
>>>> would then just be/λ/db/=hm v =4c2α f/Ze. Where /f_Ze /
>>>> is the Zitter frequency of the electron:
>>>>
>>>> So that the de Broglie wavelength for the quantized
>>>> orbitals are:
>>>>
>>>> /λ/db/=4n c2α f/Ze
>>>>
>>>> Where /n/ = 1, 2, 3…
>>>>
>>>> Thought this was interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Chip
>>>>
>>>> *From:*General
>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>>> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 10, 2017 1:52 PM
>>>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength
>>>>
>>>> Hi Colleagues!
>>>>
>>>> I did not follow all details of the preceding
>>>> discussion. But I feel motivated to comment to two
>>>> points which came up here again and again.
>>>>
>>>> One point is the de Broglie wave. For this I recommend
>>>> everyone to look into the thesis of de Broglie. It is
>>>> in original in French, but there is a nice translation
>>>> done by Al Kracklauer *). And I find it easily visible
>>>> that de Broglie's idea of his wave is based on an error.
>>>>
>>>> *)
>>>> http://aflb.ensmp.fr/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf
>>>>
>>>> De Broglie has meant to have detected the following
>>>> conflict: Physics assumes that there is a permanent
>>>> oscillation in a particle (like an electron) which
>>>> depends on its (full) energy according to the
>>>> equation: E = h*f , where f is the internal
>>>> frequency. Question was: what happens if the particle
>>>> is set to motion? Clearly its energy increases by the
>>>> kinetic energy. So the frequency f has to increase. On
>>>> the other hand SR assumes dilation which means that the
>>>> internal frequency has to decrease. This was seen as a
>>>> logical conflict which kept de Broglie (in his own
>>>> words) busy for some lengthy time. Then in his view he
>>>> found a solution which was the introduction of a new
>>>> wave, just the de Broglie wave.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with de Broglie is that he misunderstood
>>>> the situation. He was right in that the internal
>>>> oscillation slows down by dilation (if seen e.g. from
>>>> the side). However if the particle interacts with
>>>> another particle being in a different motion state (for
>>>> instance at rest) then this other particle sees a
>>>> higher frequency caused by the Doppler effect. And the
>>>> Doppler effect is about the inverse square of dilation,
>>>> so the apparent frequency is increased according to the
>>>> energy equation. And there is no problem.
>>>>
>>>> It is not even necessary to refer to the Doppler effect
>>>> in this case. If the Lorentz transformation is properly
>>>> used then it indicates an increase of the frequency
>>>> rather a decrease. So it encloses already the
>>>> implication of the Doppler effect: The according
>>>> Lorentz transformation says about the speed of proper
>>>> time: dt' = gamma*(dt-vx/c^2 ). So, if in the simple
>>>> case the interacted particle is at rest and so v=0,
>>>> then because gamma>1 t' will run faster than t . No de
>>>> Broglie wave is needed.
>>>>
>>>> The other point: there are some considerations here
>>>> about the energy / mass of the electron where the
>>>> energy is always related to the electric (or
>>>> "electromagnetic") properties of the electron. This
>>>> cannot work. Helmut Hönl has in the 1940s attempted to
>>>> deduce the mass of the electron from its electrical
>>>> energy. The result was too small by a factor of about
>>>> 300. (And this is BTW the relation between the strong
>>>> and the electrical force.) As a consequence of the work
>>>> of Hönl it was concluded that it is impossible to
>>>> determine the mass of the electron classically.
>>>> Conclusion was that the mass can only be treated by
>>>> quantum mechanics. - However if it is utilized that the
>>>> strong force is stronger by the given factor and the
>>>> strong force is used for the determination of mass then
>>>> the result is correct. I have done this calculation as
>>>> some of you know using the strong force and the result
>>>> conforms to the measurement with a precision of almost
>>>> 10^-6 . (My talk in San Diego.)
>>>>
>>>> The objection to this determination is normally that
>>>> the electron is not subject to the strong force because
>>>> it was never observed to react with a particle which
>>>> has the strong force as the dominant one. But this is
>>>> falsified in so far that at the electron ring DESY in
>>>> Hamburg an interaction between electrons and quarks on
>>>> the basis of the strong force was observed around the
>>>> year 2004. There was then an ad hoc explanation
>>>> introduced for this observation by the assumption of a
>>>> new exchange particle mediating between electrical and
>>>> strong forces which was called "leptoquark". It was
>>>> then attempted to verify the leptoquark at the
>>>> Tevatron. But without any result. So this looks like a
>>>> clear indication that the electron is also subject to
>>>> the strong force, however with a very small coupling
>>>> constant.
>>>>
>>>> So, what do you think about this?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>> Am 10.11.2017 um 15:07 schrieb André Michaud:
>>>>
>>>> Hello John,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok thanks. Taking this in also.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will develop an opinion as I read your articles
>>>> and correlate your grounding premises with my own
>>>> angle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> André Michaud
>>>> GSJournal admin
>>>> http://www.gsjournal.net/
>>>> http://www.srpinc.org/
>>>>
>>>> /On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 04:37:50 +0000, John
>>>> Williamson wrote:/
>>>>
>>>> Actually André I take it back,
>>>>
>>>> If you look at the post I sent to Chip I've argued
>>>> that one needs to consider five superimposed
>>>> spaces: space, flow in space, electric field,
>>>> magnetic field and spin, but I am forgetting myself
>>>> and warnings from Carver Mead not to double-count.
>>>> While this is true, these spaces are, indeed
>>>> coupled by linear differential equations: this
>>>> means that the odd may be taken to depend on the
>>>> even and vice-versa, meaning that only three can be
>>>> dynamically independent. They are all anyway
>>>> coupled and interdependent though the extended
>>>> theory of 4D space-time, if it is indeed the
>>>> solution to Hilbert's sixth that is.
>>>>
>>>> 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 John Williamson
>>>> [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
>>>> <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>]
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 10, 2017 4:26 AM
>>>> *To:* srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>;
>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> *Cc:* Mark, Martin van der
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie
>>>> wavelength
>>>>
>>>> Hello André,
>>>>
>>>> This is getting more and more interesting! Not
>>>> promising to look at them straight away as I've
>>>> lots to do today but will save them as a treat for
>>>> later.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the magnetic field encompasses some
>>>> aspects of spin in that is a kind of "turning
>>>> thing", but I think one eventually needs both!
>>>>
>>>> Regards, John.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From:*André Michaud [srp2 at srpinc.org
>>>> <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>]
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 09, 2017 11:10 PM
>>>> *To:* John Williamson;
>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> *Cc:* srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>
>>>> *Subject:* RE: [General] Compton and de Broglie
>>>> wavelength
>>>>
>>>> Hello John,
>>>>
>>>> Just one last comment with regard to what we put on
>>>> the table.
>>>>
>>>> I just quickly scanned your 3 papers and listened
>>>> to your talk.
>>>>
>>>> We may effectively have a direct match space-wise,
>>>> because in the trispatial geometry, your magnetic
>>>> space and your spin space are one and the same.
>>>>
>>>> You'll see why when you read about how spin can be
>>>> related to the expansion-regression process of the
>>>> magnetic component during the EM reciprocal swing.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> André Michaud
>>>> GSJournal admin
>>>> http://www.gsjournal.net/
>>>> http://www.srpinc.org/
>>>>
>>>> /On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 13:49:23 -0500, André Michaud
>>>> wrote:/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 17:33:42 +0000, John Williamson
>>>> wrote:/
>>>>
>>>> Right-ho André, I will go green ...
>>>>
>>>> Ok, I'll go violet (colors getting drowded)
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From:*André Michaud [srp2 at srpinc.org
>>>> <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>]
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 09, 2017 4:29 PM
>>>> *To:* John Williamson;
>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> *Cc:* srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>
>>>> *Subject:* RE: [General] Compton and de Broglie
>>>> wavelength
>>>>
>>>> Hi John
>>>>
>>>> I'll go red inline for my answers.
>>>>
>>>> /On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 10:26:38 +0000, John Williamson
>>>> wrote:/
>>>>
>>>> Hello Andre and Grahame,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Andre, have not looked at the trispatial
>>>> stuff, have been far too busy with the day job for
>>>> the last few weeks. Sounds interesting though.
>>>> Could you please point me to the references again
>>>> (apologies if you have already given them). I will
>>>> go blue below.
>>>>
>>>> No sweat. I also work a day job so I also indulge
>>>> when time allows. I'll give the links in context
>>>> below for consistency.
>>>>
>>>> Tough stuff, but all fun huh?
>>>>
>>>> Indeed!
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *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 André Michaud [srp2 at srpinc.org
>>>> <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>]
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 07, 2017 9:24 PM
>>>> *To:* grahame at starweave.com
>>>> <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>;
>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie
>>>> wavelength
>>>>
>>>> Hi Grahame,
>>>>
>>>> The 3D perspective doesn't rule out at all the de
>>>> Broglie wavelength. Quite the contrary. To my
>>>> knowledge, the de Broglie wavelength is the only
>>>> way to account for the energy of the electron in
>>>> motion in the 4D space geometry. The reason is that
>>>> the self-staining mutual induction of the electric
>>>> and magnetic fields of the energy making up the
>>>> invariant rest mass of the electron cannot be
>>>> described in a 4D spacetime geometry. At least, it
>>>> never was.
>>>>
>>>> Yes this can be done now. One needs to build in a
>>>> (root) rest mass to the basis of the field
>>>> (Maxwell) equations. There is an example of this in
>>>> my my two 2015 SPIE papers, though there is a flaw
>>>> in the underlying handedness of one of the fields
>>>> in that theory, the basic method is still valid.
>>>>
>>>> It can be described however in the trispatial
>>>> geometry, and so can that of its carrying energy
>>>> separately, that is the energy that causes the
>>>> electron to move and also accounts for its velocity
>>>> related transverse relativistic mass increment.
>>>>
>>>> This sounds very interesting. There is a sense in
>>>> which my new theory is quadri-spatial. I wonder if
>>>> there is some common ground here? I really need to
>>>> look at your stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Quite possibly, I have not had a look at your
>>>> material, but obviously we are exploring the same
>>>> issues.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, from what you say below these may be
>>>> EXACTLY the same issues.
>>>>
>>>> What I wrote was that the de Broglie wavelength
>>>> that combines both is not valid in the trispatial
>>>> geometry, and is replaced by a resonance effect
>>>> between the energy of the invariant rest mass of
>>>> the electron and that of its separately definable
>>>> carrying energy.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds as though you need a wave defining these two.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly right! And I have no idea of how to go
>>>> about this, because while the wavelength of the
>>>> rest mass of the electron remains fixed at the
>>>> Compton wavelength value, that of its carrying
>>>> energy varies with velocity while the electron is
>>>> accelerating, which causes the combined resonance
>>>> volume to vary with increasing velocity, so the
>>>> resonance volume fluctuates as a function of time.
>>>> In the trispatial geometry I tentatively associate
>>>> Zitterbewegung to this resonance effect.
>>>>
>>>> I think you are very close. In my model the Compton
>>>> frequency is fundamental, but double-covering,
>>>> which givesthe zitterbewegung frequency. If you do
>>>> the relativstic transformations correctly, the de
>>>> Broglie wavelength falls out of this beautifully,
>>>> as Martin first derived in 1991 (or maybe 92 - do
>>>> you remember Martin?). Martn is also working a=on
>>>> an updated and definitive paper on this at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> You are right tough, there is an orthogonal factor
>>>> involved between the electric charges of the
>>>> carrying energy and that of the electron. But
>>>> unfortunately, I don't know how to explain this
>>>> from the 4D perspective. I don't think it can be.
>>>>
>>>> In my theory the mass and fields go in as an
>>>> initially neutral fluid. Charge is derived as a
>>>> result of new topological solutions allowed by the
>>>> extended Maxwell equations. The theory is 4D from
>>>> the beginning. Both the de Broglie wavelength and
>>>> the proper transformations of energy-momentum, both
>>>> for the case of photons and material particles may
>>>> be (are!) derived.
>>>>
>>>> Wow! In the trispatial geometry, what you call a
>>>> "neutral fluid", I identify as fundamental "kinetic
>>>> energy" as induced in charges by the Coulomb force,
>>>> coupled with the fields concept being seen as only
>>>> sorts of "maps" describing the real territory (the
>>>> behavior of the energy), so there really seems to
>>>> be common grounds between both our angles on these
>>>> issues. I put this in perspective in the long but I
>>>> think required setting-in-perspective at the
>>>> beginning of the de Broglie double-particle photon
>>>> paper:
>>>>
>>>> As I have said to others - there are good features
>>>> in the double particle picture, but this is
>>>> seriously challenged by experiment. In particular
>>>> with two particles you immediately need forces to
>>>> conbfine them. these forces and particles would
>>>> show up in the scattering cross sections and they
>>>> do not. This was a good idea of de Broglies, but I
>>>> fear it is ultimately a dead end as it falls foul
>>>> of a large body of experimental evidence.
>>>>
>>>> In the double-particle picture of the trispatial
>>>> geometry, there is a self-sustaining reciprocating
>>>> swing between double component electric state and
>>>> single component magnetic state, with the recall
>>>> property being due to the Coulomb Force acting from
>>>> the trispatial junction. This is how the
>>>> self-maintaining swing is explained in the spatial
>>>> geometry, combined with a property of the
>>>> "substance" kinetic-energy to constantly remain in
>>>> motion.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the twin "particles" would show up so
>>>> much with respect to the frontal cross-section,
>>>> because in the trispatial model, the max transverse
>>>> amplitude of the electric swing is only (alpha
>>>> lambda)/(2 pi), and they cannot really be
>>>> "particles" in the sense of separate quanta such as
>>>> electrons for example. In this geometry, they are
>>>> part of a single incompressible quantum that
>>>> elastically oscillates.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf
>>>>
>>>> For the related electron and the up and down quarks
>>>> inner structures I also add the links to the two
>>>> paper that describe the related mechanics of their
>>>> establishment in the trispatial geometry if you
>>>> want to have a look:
>>>>
>>>> The Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in
>>>> the 3-Spaces Model:
>>>>
>>>> http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf
>>>>
>>>> The Mechanics of Neutron and Proton Creation in the
>>>> 3-Spaces Model:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf
>>>>
>>>> The charges in the trispatial model are a "recall
>>>> effect" towards the trispatial junction, and their
>>>> intensity is related to the distance at which
>>>> opposite "charges" happen to momentarily be on
>>>> either side of the junction. Stabilized for the
>>>> electron and positron, but varying for the photon.
>>>> Not explainable in 4D geometry, but summarized in
>>>> the first column of page 6 of this other paper in
>>>> the 3-spaces geometry with summary description of
>>>> the 3-spaces geometry:
>>>>
>>>> This sounds to me as though it has some
>>>> similarities to my concept, not of the electron,
>>>> but of the quarks as composed of underlying
>>>> electromagnetic like interactions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would indeed be interesting if all of this could
>>>> be described from the more easily dealt with 4D
>>>> geometry as you seem to have been exploring.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know that ideas like "trispatial geometry" and
>>>> "3-spaces" sound overly exotic, but they really are
>>>> not. Simply an expansion of the concept of the
>>>> magnetic field vs electric field vectorial cross
>>>> product giving the related triply orthogonal
>>>> electromagnetic relation between electric aspect,
>>>> magnetic aspect, and direction of motion of any
>>>> point of Maxwell's spherically expanding
>>>> electromagnetic wavefront in plane wave treatment,
>>>> being applied to the point source of the wave,
>>>> which allows the emitted quantum to remain
>>>> localized as it starts moving at c from the point
>>>> of emission, which would explain EM photons'
>>>> permanent localization.
>>>>
>>>> I agree completely, and two of my "3D space are
>>>> indeed the three of electric and the three of
>>>> magnetic (properly the six of electromagnetic,
>>>> relativistically of course). My other two are the
>>>> three of mass-current and the three of spin. I also
>>>> agree about the localisation.
>>>>
>>>> We seem to really wading in the same waters then.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In short, the de Broglie wavelength in 4D spacetime
>>>> geometry is a valid, but more general
>>>> representation of the combined resonance effect of
>>>> both the electron energy and its carrying energy in
>>>> the 3-spaces geometry.
>>>>
>>>> As Grahame mentioned, Martin van der Mark derived
>>>> this independently from our rotating photon model
>>>> in 1991, see the comment below.
>>>>
>>>> Would you have a link to this paper by Martin?
>>>>
>>>> This is Martin and my 1997 paper on the localised
>>>> photon and is available here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf
>>>> <http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> There is also a talk of mine on there somewhere,
>>>> with my model for the quarks.
>>>>
>>>> The SPIE papers are available under my name on the
>>>> Glasgow university website.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> eprints.gla.ac.uk/110966/ and
>>>> eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Ok, Il have a look at your material and Martin's.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we should wait until we both have had time to
>>>> look at the others stuff before trying to correlate
>>>> ideas more closely.
>>>> We are nearing exhaustion of the usable color range.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> This definitely looks like a quite exciting
>>>> conversation.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed!
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> André Michaud
>>>> GSJournal admin
>>>> http://www.gsjournal.net/
>>>> http://www.srpinc.org/
>>>>
>>>> /On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 19:49:07 -0000, "Dr Grahame
>>>> Blackwell" wrote:/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi André,
>>>>
>>>> I don'tunderstand why a 3-D perspective rules out
>>>> de Broglie wavelength - it certainly doesn't in my
>>>> 3-dimensionally based scenario. The de Broglie
>>>> wavelength is the wavelength attributable to the
>>>> energy-flow component of the electron's formative
>>>> photon responsible for particle motion (as
>>>> identified by Davisson & Germer), whilst the
>>>> Compton wavelength is the wavelength of the
>>>> formative photon in a static electron - which gives
>>>> the cyclic component of the formative photon
>>>> travelling helically as a moving electron. In that
>>>> moving electron those two components combine as
>>>> sides of a right-angled triangle (Pythag again!) to
>>>> give the full gamma-factored frequency of
>>>> energy-flow in that moving particle, corresponding
>>>> to the 'relativistically' increased energy content
>>>> of the moving particle. [It's true, of course, that
>>>> de Broglie wavelength never appears as the
>>>> peak-to-peak length of a wave in its own right,
>>>> only as the 'wavelength' of a component of the full
>>>> photon wave that forms a moving electron.]
>>>>
>>>> Only the cyclic component will be apparent to an
>>>> observer (or instrument) travelling with that
>>>> electron - the linear component is not apparent due
>>>> to a form of Doppler effect. This is well shown in
>>>> John Williamson & Martin van der Mark's paper 'Is
>>>> the Electron a Toroidal Photon?', in which they
>>>> refer to these components as "time-like" and
>>>> "space-like". I don't agree with their proposal
>>>> that this explains de Broglie's 'Harmony of the
>>>> Phases' - in my view a time dilation factor seems
>>>> to have gone missing - but the identification of
>>>> these components as collinear-with (de Broglie)and
>>>> orthogonal-to (Compton) the direction of particle
>>>> motion is very well reasoned and presented.
>>>>
>>>> No this is not so - Martin derived the harmony of
>>>> phases from this independently in around 1991. It
>>>> was pointed out to us in 1994 by Ulrich Enz ( on
>>>> circulating in Philips a second attempt to publish
>>>> that paper) that the Harmony of phases had first
>>>> been described by de Broglie in his thesis.
>>>>
>>>> This perspective on particle energy-flow can be
>>>> used to explain fully the phenomenon referred to as
>>>> 'inertial mass' without reference to any extraneous
>>>> bosons or fields, it also provides a direct
>>>> derivation of E = mc^2 without any reference to SR.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Grahame
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>> *From:*André Michaud <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>
>>>>
>>>> *To:*richgauthier at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> ;
>>>> general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>
>>>> *Sent:*Tuesday, November 07, 2017 3:45 PM
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] The Entangled
>>>> Double-Helix Superluminal Photon Model
>>>>
>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the link. I had a quick look, and
>>>> this brings me to clarify why I wrote that
>>>> there can be no de Broglie wavelength from the
>>>> trispatial geometry perspective because I
>>>> observe that I did not clarify this point.
>>>>
>>>> It is due to the fact that in the trispatial
>>>> geometry, the carrying energy of a moving
>>>> electron is a full fledged electromagnetic
>>>> "carrier-photon", which possesses its own
>>>> wavelength, which is separate from the Compton
>>>> wavelength of the electron.
>>>>
>>>> In the trispatial geometry, there can be no
>>>> common de Broglie wavelength, but only a state
>>>> of resonance between both wavelengths, whose
>>>> form and extent of volumes as a function of
>>>> time depends uniquely on the possibly varying
>>>> energy of the carrier photon as the electron
>>>> progresses in space since the wavelength of the
>>>> energy making up the invariant rest mass of the
>>>> electron is invariant.
>>>>
>>>> This means that to describe electrons in motion
>>>> from the trispatial perspective, the structure
>>>> of the wave function needs to be adapted to
>>>> account for this. This is something beyond my
>>>> abilities to do, but that you or others would
>>>> be better equipped math wise to do eventually.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> André Michaud
>>>> GSJournal admin
>>>> http://www.gsjournal.net/
>>>> http://www.srpinc.org/
>>>>
>>>> /On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 06:25:31 -0800, Richard
>>>> Gauthier wrote:/
>>>>
>>>> HelloAndréand all,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks you for your detailed comments comparing
>>>> our approaches, which I will come back to. One
>>>> link to my Schroedinger equation article is
>>>> https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation
>>>> <https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schr%C3%B6dinger_Equation>.
>>>> A link to a related article is
>>>> athttps://www.academia.edu/9973842/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength_and_a_New_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics.
>>>> Both articles can also be downloaded
>>>> fromhttps://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research.
>>>>
>>>> An article making an analogy between photons in
>>>> a cavity and electrons in an atom is
>>>> athttps://www.academia.edu/19894441/Photonic_Atoms_Predicted_by_the_Charged_Photon_Model_of_the_Electron.
>>>>
>>>> with warm regards,
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:22 PM, André Michaud
>>>> <srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>
>>>> I will try to explain how I correlate my
>>>> understanding of the wave-particle duality with
>>>> what I perceive your understanding is. But it
>>>> is very difficult to do, because, I understand
>>>> this in the frame of the expanded trispatial
>>>> geometry, while you describe it from the
>>>> perspective of the 4D space geometry.
>>>>
>>>> Also, from my understanding, there exists only
>>>> localized elementary charged particles in
>>>> physical reality, and even after they stabilize
>>>> in various electromagnetic equilibrium states
>>>> (nucleons, atoms, molecules, larger bodies),
>>>> that continue interacting individually. Because
>>>> of this, to me, there is no discontinuity
>>>> between the submicroscopic level, the
>>>> macroscopic level and even with the
>>>> astronomical level.
>>>>
>>>> From my perspective, when I look at a baseball
>>>> in my hand and think of how it interacts, I see
>>>> only the bunch of electrons, up quarks and down
>>>> quarks plus their carrying energy that make up
>>>> its mass that interact with the bunch of
>>>> electrons, up quarks and down quarks plus their
>>>> carrying energy that make up the mass of my own
>>>> body and the Earth.
>>>>
>>>> When you write: "/The question is, what gives
>>>> the photon its individual particle-like nature
>>>> and also its statistical wave-like nature.
>>>> Since the answer is that "nobody knows", /"
>>>>
>>>> I would qualify the last part as "/Since the
>>>> answer is that "nobody knows *from the 4D space
>>>> geometry perspective*", /", which is exactly
>>>> what de Broglie ended up concluding.
>>>>
>>>> This is what got me to thinking and end up
>>>> exploding the three ijk orthogonal vectors
>>>> describing the electromagnetic triply
>>>> orthogonal relation of any point of the Maxwell
>>>> continuous EM wavefront into 3 full fledged
>>>> orthogonal spaces, to see if this could help,
>>>> and I found that it does.
>>>>
>>>> But from this perspective, particle-like
>>>> behavior of localized elementary particles such
>>>> as the photon amount only to its longitudinal
>>>> inertia coupled to a frontal cross-section
>>>> related to the extent of the transverse
>>>> oscillation of its electromagnetically
>>>> oscillating half, and its wave-like behavior
>>>> can only be the full extent of this transverse
>>>> electromagnetic oscillation.
>>>>
>>>> This transverse oscillation amounts to a form
>>>> of resonance of the energy of the photon, and
>>>> the volume of space visited by this resonance
>>>> is the only thing that can be described by the
>>>> wave function in the trispatial geometry,
>>>> metaphorically speaking, like the wave function
>>>> can describe the volume visited by a resonating
>>>> (vibrating) guitar string, but here the "guitar
>>>> string" is the energy half quantum that
>>>> electromagnetically oscillates.
>>>>
>>>> What you name its "/statistical wave-like
>>>> nature/" to me is the distribution of its
>>>> energy density within the volume that it
>>>> resonates in over a given time period.
>>>>
>>>> When you write: " /that the helically-moving
>>>> charged photon (now I would call it a
>>>> half-photon) composing an electron produces a
>>>> quantum wave/"
>>>>
>>>> This is a description that belong to 4D space.
>>>> In the 3-spaces geometry, this is not possible
>>>> because the electromagnetic oscillation is a
>>>> reciprocating swing between both states. The
>>>> helical motion of the twin charges you describe
>>>> however in your 4D model is theoretically
>>>> possible in the trispatial geometry, because
>>>> both charges are free to swivel freely on the
>>>> Y-y/Y-z plane within electrostatic space while
>>>> the photon moves at c in X-space, which is why
>>>> I think your model is fine even from my 3-space
>>>> perspective. The only difference is that in the
>>>> trispatial geometry, the charges symmetrically
>>>> piston in and out in opposite directions from
>>>> zero presence to full extent at the frequency
>>>> of the reciprocating swing.
>>>>
>>>> But there is no such thing as a "quantum wave"
>>>> being produced or emitted in the trispatial
>>>> geometry.
>>>>
>>>> The only possibility for the wave function to
>>>> apply (to the trispaces photon model) is to
>>>> describe the resonance volume of space occupied
>>>> by the oscillating EM energy while
>>>> reciprocatingly swinging between electric state
>>>> and magnetic state. Nothing is emitted while
>>>> the photon travels.
>>>>
>>>> Our approaches indeed are not very different as
>>>> you mention, but you would have to really get
>>>> into the trispatial geometry to see how close
>>>> they are. The major difference rests with the
>>>> integration of the magnetic aspect, a feature
>>>> that I see no possibility to coherently
>>>> integrate in the too restricted frame of 4D
>>>> space geometry.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I have an electron model based on the
>>>> trispatial photon model. In fact, there is even
>>>> a clear and seamless mechanics of decoupling of
>>>> a single 1.022 MeV or more photon into a pair
>>>> of electron and positron, but it can make
>>>> mechanical sense only in the trispatial geometry.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a link to the paper describing the
>>>> decoupling mechanics, and also the inner
>>>> structure of the electron (and positron of
>>>> course), titled "The Mechanics of
>>>> Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces
>>>> Model":
>>>>
>>>> http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing in the trispaces
>>>> geometry as a de Broglie wavelength as you
>>>> conceive, so I cannot comment or relate
>>>> anything to it.
>>>>
>>>> When you write: " /A photon can be "bound" in a
>>>> wave cavity in many possible "resonant states"
>>>> depending on its wavelength just like an
>>>> electron can be "bound" in an atom in many
>>>> possible orbitals or "resonant states"
>>>> depending on the electron's energy in the atom."/
>>>>
>>>> When I think of a photon interacting, I see it
>>>> interacting with one or many other elementary
>>>> particles. To me a photon interacting with a
>>>> wave cavity such as you consider, is only one
>>>> photon interacting with a bunch of other
>>>> individual photons or other charged EM
>>>> particles such as electrons, positrons, up
>>>> quarks and down quarks, so I do not know how to
>>>> correlate this with what you say. In the
>>>> trispatial geometry, free moving photons cannot
>>>> stabilize into least action resonance states
>>>> within atoms, but they can communicate their
>>>> energy to electrons so captive, which causes
>>>> them to jump farther away from nuclei or even
>>>> completely escape.
>>>>
>>>> When you say: "/Maybe the electron gives off
>>>> one or more photons while adjusting to a
>>>> relatively stable resonant energy state in the
>>>> atom./"
>>>>
>>>> When an electron stabilizes in a least action
>>>> resonance state in an atom, only "one"
>>>> electromagnetic photon can be emitted, carrying
>>>> away the momentum related kinetic energy that
>>>> the electron accumulated while accelerating
>>>> until stopped in its motion as it was being
>>>> captured. For example, a 13.6 eV photon is
>>>> emitted when an electron is captured by a
>>>> proton to form a hydrogen atom.
>>>>
>>>> But overall, I think we really are looking at
>>>> the same thing from different angles, and
>>>> seeing practically the same thing, but with
>>>> different color glasses, so to speak.
>>>>
>>>> I'd have a look at your paper "The
>>>> Charged-Photon Model of the Electron Fits the
>>>> Schrödinger Equation" (article 21)." Can you
>>>> give me a link?
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> André Michaud
>>>> GSJournal admin
>>>> http://www.gsjournal.net/
>>>> http://www.srpinc.org/
>>>>
>>>> /On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 15:08:43 -0800, Richard
>>>> Gauthier wrote:/
>>>>
>>>> Hi André,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your very helpful comments and
>>>> questions. The reason that in 2002 I switched
>>>> from a two-particle superluminal quantum model
>>>> of a photon to a one-particle superluminal
>>>> quantum model was that I thought that the lack
>>>> of experimental evidence for two particles in a
>>>> single photon's makeup would decisively defeat
>>>> this model. Now with a second look it seems
>>>> that my own rejection at that time of
>>>> essentially the same model was premature. But I
>>>> did learn more about electron and photon
>>>> modeling between then and now.
>>>>
>>>> Referring to point 6 on the question of
>>>> wave-particle duality, as you know, the photon
>>>> acts like a point particle when it is detected
>>>> individually by a charge-coupled-device (CCD)
>>>> or other methods. But the statistical
>>>> distribution of photons when many photons are
>>>> detected over an area follows a predictable
>>>> wave-like pattern predicted from the wavelength
>>>> of the photon (which can actually be measured
>>>> consistently from such experiments). The
>>>> question is, what gives the photon its
>>>> individual particle-like nature and also its
>>>> statistical wave-like nature. Since the answer
>>>> is that "nobody knows", I proposed in my
>>>> electron model article "Electrons are spin-1/2
>>>> charged photons generating the de Broglie
>>>> wavelength" at
>>>> https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers
>>>> (article #16) that the helically-moving charged
>>>> photon (now I would call it a half-photon)
>>>> composing an electron produces a quantum wave,
>>>> and showed mathematically that this quantum
>>>> wave predicts the electron's de Broglie
>>>> wavelength along the longitudinal direction the
>>>> electron (composed of the helically-moving
>>>> charged photon) is moving. That gave me
>>>> confidence that a photon model (composed of 2
>>>> spin-1/2 charged photons) would emit similar
>>>> quantum waves that would have the photon
>>>> model's helical wavelength and frequency of
>>>> rotation, but would also have a wave form and
>>>> frequency and would act like a quantum wave
>>>> function to provide the necessary statistical
>>>> predictions about detecting photons.
>>>>
>>>> You explain wave-particle duality differently
>>>> in your photon model, as due to transverse
>>>> electromagnetic oscillations within your photon
>>>> model. Perhaps these two approaches are not so
>>>> different. Do you have an electron model based
>>>> on your tri-space photon model, and if so does
>>>> your electron model generate the de Broglie
>>>> wavelength?
>>>>
>>>> Also, you said you associate the quantum wave
>>>> of a photon with a resonance volume associated
>>>> with the photon rather than a
>>>> "wave-being-emitted" from the photon. Again,
>>>> our approaches may not be so different. A
>>>> photon can be "bound" in a wave cavity in many
>>>> possible "resonant states" depending on its
>>>> wavelength just like an electron can be "bound"
>>>> in an atom in many possible orbitals or
>>>> "resonant states" depending on the electron's
>>>> energy in the atom. I see the superluminal
>>>> energy quantum composing an electron as
>>>> something that seeks out through its quantum
>>>> waves the possible resonant states in an atom
>>>> (or positive ion) it meets, based on the
>>>> electron's energy and wavelength, and then
>>>> establishes itself in an energy state (with its
>>>> corresponding wave function) in the atom which
>>>> is consistent with the electron's energy (and
>>>> its de Broglie wavelength). Maybe the electron
>>>> gives off one or more photons while adjusting
>>>> to a relatively stable resonant energy state in
>>>> the atom. Something similar could happen when a
>>>> photon enters a cavity where it can settle into
>>>> a resonance state if it has the necessary
>>>> wavelength. This I think is a new way of
>>>> looking at quantum mechanics and is quite
>>>> tentative. My work connecting the "spin-1/2
>>>> charged photon" electron model with the
>>>> Schroedinger equation is at "The Charged-Photon
>>>> Model of the Electron Fits the Schrödinger
>>>> Equation" (article 21).
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, André Michaud
>>>> <srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>
>>>> I have been reading your last paper:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320727586_Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Composite_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant
>>>>
>>>> Quite interesting and clearly described. Easy
>>>> to visualize.
>>>>
>>>> The first point I note is your use of a pair of
>>>> charges in action within the photon structure,
>>>> which is something I agree must be the case.
>>>> Since light can be polarized by magnetic
>>>> fields, it makes complete sense that charges,
>>>> which are known to react to magnetic fields,
>>>> must be involved in a localized photon and that
>>>> two of them need be present and interacting,
>>>> since how could a single point-like behaving
>>>> charge ever be polarized?
>>>>
>>>> Referring to basic geometry, a point can have
>>>> no particular orientation in space while two
>>>> point (charges) physically located some
>>>> distance apart, however close they may be, and
>>>> between which a distance (a line) can be
>>>> measured, can transversally be oriented in any
>>>> direction on a plane perpendicular to the
>>>> direction of motion, which light polarisation
>>>> seems to involve.
>>>>
>>>> I also agree with your correlating them with
>>>> the concept of two half spin half-photons,
>>>> which gives the complete photon a spin of 1,
>>>> which is in line with de Broglie's hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> Since you make them move in a double helical
>>>> trajectory, they are de facto in mutual
>>>> transverse alignment with respect to the
>>>> direction of motion, which makes your photon
>>>> polarizable in conformity with observation, and
>>>> is in agreement with the known fact that
>>>> electromagnetic energy involves transverse
>>>> oscillation, contrary to sound in a medium
>>>> which involves longitudinal oscillation of the
>>>> medium.
>>>>
>>>> You mention that Caroppo (8) has developed a
>>>> hypothesis along the same lines without
>>>> reference to de Broglie, but I couldn't locate
>>>> it to have a look because no doubt by mishap
>>>> your (8) refers to the Einstein-Pololsky-Rosen
>>>> paper that fed initiated the debate with Bohr
>>>> (if I recall correctly) and in which I couldn't
>>>> locate Caroppo's name.
>>>>
>>>> Since you make them spiral along the
>>>> trajectory, their slightly internal
>>>> superluminal spiraling velocities are
>>>> consistent with the fact the photon proper
>>>> would move at c.
>>>>
>>>> You assign fixed values to both charges, which
>>>> is consistent with the fact that they remain at
>>>> fixed distances from the axis of motion. This
>>>> is different from my model, in which their
>>>> value varies between a maximum and zero at each
>>>> cycle. In my own model, I see the concept of
>>>> charge as a form of "recall potential", so to
>>>> speak, that tends to pull the energy making up
>>>> the half-photons towards each other.
>>>>
>>>> As for a quantum wave being generated by the
>>>> photon, I have an entirely different view of
>>>> how the wave function applies to elementary
>>>> particles. In particular, since in my view, the
>>>> wave function defines a resonance volume first
>>>> and foremost, I do not understand it as being
>>>> something like a "wave-being-emitted" only as a
>>>> resonance volume within which oscillating
>>>> energy quanta would be contained in resonance
>>>> state either while in translational motion or
>>>> when stabilized in some electromagnetic least
>>>> action state. So I have no comment for this part.
>>>>
>>>> I think your model is consistent with splitting
>>>> into a pair of separately moving electron and
>>>> positron if it has an energy of 1.022 MeV or
>>>> more, just like my own model.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with your idea of the charges of both
>>>> half-photons being Q and -Q relative to each
>>>> other, except in mine, their intensity
>>>> cyclically varies. I think your use of the
>>>> Coulomb force to hold them is consistent. In my
>>>> model, I am still fuzzy about what the Coulomb
>>>> force really is, so I am still in search of how
>>>> it really applies within the structure of my
>>>> model, although I am convinced that it applies.
>>>>
>>>> I have no comment on entanglement.
>>>>
>>>> To your possible criticism No. 1) regarding the
>>>> superluminal velocity. I agree that this is a
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> You put in the possible criticism list the idea
>>>> No. 2) the photon may be composite.
>>>>
>>>> No possible criticism in this case in my view.
>>>> If the photon was not composite, it simply
>>>> could not be polarized. If it was not
>>>> composite, it would behave point-like like the
>>>> electron, a structure that has no orientation
>>>> in space. From my perspective, the very fact
>>>> that it can be polarized by magnetic fields is
>>>> the proof that it is internally composite.
>>>>
>>>> Your possible criticism No. 3) is grounded on
>>>> Larmor's hypothesis, not on physically observed
>>>> behavior. No new law is required. There is no
>>>> account on record of electrons accelerating in
>>>> straight line that radiate energy while
>>>> accelerating. You need to wiggle them from side
>>>> to side along the trajectory for them to
>>>> release synchrotron radiation. Also, the John
>>>> Blewett experiments with the GE Betatron in the
>>>> 1940`s showed that electrons on perfectly
>>>> circular orbits do not radiate. Electrons
>>>> radiate in cyclotron`s storage rings only
>>>> because their trajectories are forced into
>>>> "approximately circular" orbits, not "perfectly
>>>> circular" orbits.
>>>>
>>>> Your No. 4) is no criticism indeed, It simply
>>>> is a possibility that single high enough energy
>>>> photons could possibly produce muon-antimuon
>>>> pairs for example. Your photon model is not
>>>> oversimplified. I think it is ok in this respect.
>>>>
>>>> Your No. 5) I would reformulate as follows:
>>>> "Light "beam" (made of individual photos)
>>>> easily pass through each other. You assume that
>>>> their internal charges would interact with each
>>>> other and disturb their photon trajectories.
>>>>
>>>> If the pair of charges of each photon can be
>>>> polarized transversally, which is what is
>>>> observed, then what interaction they may have
>>>> with each other will be on the transverse
>>>> plane, mutually affecting only the orientation
>>>> of their mutual polarities, which would not
>>>> affect their trajectories, which is what is
>>>> observed. Besides, since they cross paths each
>>>> moving at c, the interaction is reduced to a
>>>> barely measurable moment. We know they interact
>>>> however, as proved by the McDonald et. all
>>>> experiments at SLAC in 1997 when they mutually
>>>> destabilized sufficiently for some 1.022 MeV
>>>> (or more) photons in one of the beams to
>>>> convert to electron positron pairs.
>>>>
>>>> Your Number 6). I see wave-particle duality of
>>>> the photon in the following manner:
>>>> Longitudinal point-like behaving cross-section
>>>> during absorption, and transverse
>>>> electromagnetic oscillation (wave-like
>>>> behavior) during motion. To me this is the only
>>>> meaning of wave-particle duality.
>>>>
>>>> Your Number 7) is interesting. The very
>>>> structure of the 2 charges model of your photon
>>>> model and of mine provide the answer. Both
>>>> charges being rigidly maintained by structure
>>>> on either side of the axis of motion of the
>>>> photon, they can freely swivel on the
>>>> perpendicular plane from the minutest
>>>> transverse electric or magnetic interaction.
>>>> This characteristic alone is sufficient in my
>>>> view for entire beams of photons to be forced
>>>> into the same polarity orientation by
>>>> subjecting the beam to any specific
>>>> electromagnetic constraint configuration.
>>>>
>>>> I would add two items to your list of possible
>>>> criticism
>>>>
>>>> 8) How does the photon maintain its light velocity?
>>>>
>>>> 9) Since photons are supposed to be
>>>> electromagnetic, how can the electric and
>>>> magnetic fields that they are supposed to be
>>>> associated with be described?
>>>>
>>>> Quite a biteful to chew on! You seem to have
>>>> addressed most issues that need to be analyzed
>>>> about the photon.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> André Michaud
>>>> GSJournal admin
>>>> http://www.gsjournal.net/
>>>> http://www.srpinc.org/
>>>>
>>>> /On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:23:45 -0700, Richard
>>>> Gauthier wrote:/
>>>>
>>>> Forwarded from Chip
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>> *From: *"Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>>
>>>>
>>>> *Subject: [General] Relativity*
>>>>
>>>> *Date: *October 31, 2017 at 6:46:19 AM PDT
>>>>
>>>> *To: *"'Nature of Light and Particles -
>>>> General Discussion'"
>>>> <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>>>
>>>> *Reply-To: *Nature of Light and Particles -
>>>> General Discussion
>>>> <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Grahame (and Andre)
>>>>
>>>> A while back, we briefly discussed the idea
>>>> that SR is not “logically self-consistent”
>>>> even though many conclude that it is
>>>> mathematically self-consistent.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding logical self-consistent issues…
>>>>
>>>> In order to address this point I think we
>>>> would need to take a look at the
>>>> “landscape” as it relates to “relativity”.
>>>>
>>>> While doing this, if we look at causes,
>>>> which is to say that we use the concept of
>>>> cause-and-effect as our guiding principle,
>>>> as you have properly stressed, we can come
>>>> to logical conclusions which simply do not
>>>> agree with SR in all details.
>>>>
>>>> So we can take a look at many of the known
>>>> conditions to guide the development of a
>>>> composite view of the causes for “relativity”.
>>>>
>>>> Sound waves travel through a medium. Sound
>>>> waves exhibit the Doppler Effect simply
>>>> because they travel at a “fixed” speed
>>>> through a “homogeneous” medium, regardless
>>>> of the velocity of the object emitting the
>>>> waves.
>>>>
>>>> Light also exhibits the Doppler Effect in
>>>> space.
>>>>
>>>> So there is an indication that some
>>>> similarities may exist between the causes
>>>> of the Doppler Effect in sound and in light.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein stated that “/light is propagated
>>>> in empty space with a velocity c which is
>>>> independent of the motion of the source/”,
>>>> which is an incomplete statement, logically
>>>> inconsistent, because the/velocity c in
>>>> empty space/has no meaning, unless we use
>>>> the fixed frame of space, or some other
>>>> reference, as the logical reference for
>>>> that velocity. A velocity simply must be
>>>> stated in reference to something.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein also stated that, “/Absolute
>>>> uniform motion cannot be detected by any
>>>> means./” Which is indicated by experiment
>>>> as well. So no problem here.
>>>>
>>>> And he then followed with the assertion
>>>> that “/This is to say that the concept of
>>>> absolute rest and the ether have no
>>>> meaning./” (/Paraphrased/)
>>>>
>>>> This second conclusion is/not/fully
>>>> logically supported by the evidence
>>>> presented, and is logically inconsistent
>>>> with the assertion that “/light is
>>>> propagated in empty space with a velocity c
>>>> which is independent of the motion of the
>>>> source/”. There are alternate
>>>> interpretations of this evidence which are
>>>> more causal and logical than this.
>>>>
>>>> First, our inability to measure something
>>>> does not necessarily make it meaningless.
>>>> There are a myriad examples we can give of
>>>> things which we cannot directly measure,
>>>> but we have come to accept, because of
>>>> indirect evidence which stipulates their
>>>> existence.
>>>>
>>>> We can however, from the evidence,
>>>> reconstruct a set of conditions, which is
>>>> causal, and yields results which match
>>>> observation.
>>>>
>>>> For example, if light is made of “stuff”
>>>> that propagates through a fixed frame of
>>>> space at c, and if matter is made of
>>>> confined versions of the same “stuff” also
>>>> propagating (in confinement) at c in a
>>>> fixed frame of space, then we would have
>>>> exactly this set of circumstances. We would
>>>> not be able to detect our motion through
>>>> space by using an apparatus like the
>>>> Michelson-Morley experiment. Note: This
>>>> approach does not relegate as meaningless
>>>> anything which may in fact be quite important.
>>>>
>>>> But if “/the concept of absolute rest and
>>>> the ether have no meaning.”/Then how do we
>>>> explain/“light is propagated in empty space
>>>> with a velocity c which is independent of
>>>> the motion of the source”/and the resultant
>>>> Doppler Effect when a moving object emits
>>>> light?
>>>>
>>>> While I am fully aware of the explanation
>>>> that EM radiation is represented by vector
>>>> “fields”, and that they somehow could
>>>> propagate through an empty space at a fixed
>>>> velocity justified only by the math. That
>>>> is a less satisfactory answer logically
>>>> because it does not present/physical/cause.
>>>> This consideration, and the Doppler Effect,
>>>> coupled with the underlying physical cause
>>>> mentioned above, for us not being able to
>>>> detect our own motion through space, yields
>>>> two logically consistent reasons for
>>>> looking at space as a sort of medium, with
>>>> a “fixed” frame.
>>>>
>>>> Lorentz transformations are a natural
>>>> result of the situation mentioned above
>>>> regarding the constitution of light a
>>>> matter. These transformations are required
>>>> under the circumstances where light and
>>>> matter are made of the same “stuff” and
>>>> that stuff moves at the fixed speed c in a
>>>> fixed frame of space. This all occurs in a
>>>> 3 dimensional Euclidian space.
>>>>
>>>> So there is a more logically consistent,
>>>> causal view, than the one proposed by SR.
>>>>
>>>> When we run the math describing the
>>>> situation where space is a medium in which
>>>> the propagation of disturbances is a fixed
>>>> velocity, and light and matter are made of
>>>> these disturbances, we obtain the set of
>>>> Lorentz transformations, and cause for
>>>> “relativity” is shown, precisely and
>>>> clearly. This is a logically consistent
>>>> basis, and one which shows cause. In
>>>> contrast to SR, which is a different
>>>> interpretation of the same starting
>>>> information, but does not show cause, and
>>>> does not appear to be as logically consistent.
>>>>
>>>> Are there ways to present this and related
>>>> information which better illustrates the
>>>> case from a logical basis?
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Chip
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive
>>>> communication from the Nature of Light and
>>>> Particles General Discussion List
>>>> atrichgauthier at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>> <a
>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication
>>>> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
>>>> Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
>>>> <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
>>>> <a
>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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 <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180123/841e939f/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list