<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1253" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>
<!--
-->
</STYLE>
<STYLE>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
p
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"}
span.MsoPlaceholderText
{color:gray}
span.BalloonTextChar
{font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"}
span.balloontextchar0
{font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"}
span.emailstyle21
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
span.emailstyle22
{color:black}
span.emailstyle24
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
span.EmailStyle27
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
span.journalname1
{font-style:italic}
span.journalnumber
{font-weight:bold}
span.atl
{}
span.cite-month-year
{}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt}
div.WordSection1
{}
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US dir=ltr link=blue vLink=purple>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Martin, </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think you already have the proof you’re looking for in the ultraviolet
catastrophe the photoelectric effect and the toroidal photon. Those electrons
that emit light <EM>are</EM> light. Ditto for the protons. Think about
low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation. When you annihilate a proton with an
antiproton, you don’t get quarks spilling out. You get pions, which decay into
gamma rays, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. Forget about the neutrinos for
a minute, because they travel at c or thereabouts. Annihilate the electrons with
the positrons, and all you’ve got is gamma photons. There’s also a 1%
cross-section for direct annihilation to gamma photons. What’s the electron made
out of? Light. What’s the proton made out of? Light. What’s emitting light?
Light. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><IMG title=pantipannihilation2
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-IMAGE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px"
border=0 alt=pantipannihilation2
src="cid:9DF67FA286124C509193C14E2986ED55@HPlaptop" width=467 height=187></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards</DIV>
<DIV>John D</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">Mark, Martin van der</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:16 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=johnduffield@btconnect.com
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com">John Duffield</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the
problem</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'><PRE style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma; COLOR: black">Dear John,
I see what you are saying, at least to some extend, and you are creative and absorbing. Good. Still there are a few reasons why i cannot adopt your view straight away, but we will talk about that later.
I am not after some model, i am after experimental fact!
In my email i just asked a simple question, with possibly (likely) a very, very subtle answer. I am looking for the experimental proof for the quantization of light. To be more precise, the proof that quantization is really in the fields, in the photon.
This proof is not found in Compton scattering or blackbody radiation, and in fact it may not be possible to prove it. Nonetheless it is common knowledge that the photon is quatized by itself, not as a result of the total exchange process between emitter and absorber....
For the august conference this should be a very important question to answer, or explain, point out, or whatever the present status of it is...
Cheers, Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
> Op 19 feb. 2015 om 21:16 heeft "John Duffield" <johnduffield@btconnect.com> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Martin:
>
> I think the quantization of the photon is an intrinsic property of the photon because the emitters and absorbers are photons. We don’t call them that, and they’re usually in an atom, but we can make them out of light, and we can diffract them, and when we’ve finished with them we can turn them back into photons. I don't know if you saw Leonard Susskind trying to explain the Higgs boson<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNg819PiZY>, but at 2 minutes 50 seconds he was waving his marker round* saying angular momentum is quantized. See the red dot at the top left below?
> [Deep_water_wave]
>
> Now roll your finger round and round. Do it fast, or do it slow, but always roll it round the same loop. It’s like the wave height is always the same regardless of wavelength. And there it is, hidden in plain sight, the amplitude is always the same regardless of wavelength:
> [image]
>
> Hence there’s only one wavelength you can use to make an electron, where the wavelength is 4Ο€ times the amplitude. Hence your electron is always a 511keV electron. But maybe it’s better to say the quantum nature of light is something to do with the very nature of space itself. Or as chandra would call it, the complex tension field. Like it’s got an elastic limit or a β€œsaturation point<http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html>β€ or something.
>
> Regards
> John D
>
>
> * also see at 3:22 where Susskind says a field is a condition of space.
>
>
> From: Mark, Martin van der<mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:50 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Subject: Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem
>
> Dear John (Williamson),
> Thank you for your explanation about polarized light and photons. I fully support what you have said.
>
> Then again there is always something I have in the back of my mind, and it is very much related to this. I am referring to the quantization of the photon: Is it an intrinsic property of the photon, or is it the result the structure of boundary conditions given by emitter and absorber intermediated by an unquantized EM-wave?
> We mostly believe the first, and incidentally, this would , with high degree of certainty IMPLY the existence of circularly polarized light as the base state!
> Harry Atwater gave a talk at SPIE Photonics West and he referred to photons being quantized and proof of plasmons being quantized in the same way. I asked him about the photon quantization afterwards, he said I should look up Leonard Mandel, 1980ies (he died in 2001 so we cannot ask him).
> Haven’t come round to do so yet…
> Best, Martin
>
> I will try to find out, but help is very welcome
> This may be a starting point:
> http://www.nature.com/milestones/milephotons/full/milephotons11.html
>
>
> Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>
> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
> Prof. Holstlaan 4
> 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
> Tel: +31 40 2747548
>
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
> Sent: donderdag 19 februari 2015 8:27
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem
>
> Gentle people,
>
> I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ...
>
> None of us understand and encompass all that is known.
>
> Even when we base this on empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK they are in different rooms!
>
> I think one of the big mysteries is the workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it carries exactly none at all (linear polarised).
>
> Why do I assert then that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle physicists.
>
> A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 - carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 = 1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a linearly polarised photon!
>
> Conclusion: in collective systems the base process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an eigenstate of angular momentum - circular.
>
> Another example from the atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit.
>
> Of course one can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons (helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with hbar per photon.
>
> Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the system (seen) by the photon...
>
> Remember- the easiest person to fool is oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ...
>
> Conclusion: any theory we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out allowed!
>
> Regards, John.
> ________________________________
> From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [chandra@phys.uconn.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:31 PM
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> Subject: [General] Photonic electron and spin
> Photons cannot carry angular momentum by virtue of NIW-Property!
>
> Chip:
> I am with you 100% that photons cannot β€œcarryβ€ spin angular momentum! This has been another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of β€œInterference of Wavesβ€, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show that only so-called β€œcircularβ€ or β€œellipticallyβ€ polarized light could impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams. Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant.
> By virtue of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams, combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can effectively carry out an β€œangular momentumβ€ like spin under the stimulation of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not β€œincoherentβ€! Light is never β€œincoherentβ€; the detector’s response characteristics determine the beams’ correlation property, or the β€œviability of the fringesβ€. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors’ physical properties as β€œOptical Coherenceβ€ properties! Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones’ matrix analysis have built-in formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this. I have explained these stuff in the β€œpolarizationβ€ chapter in my book, β€œCausal Physics:….β€ http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168 ]
>
> We have been assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a wrong direction!
>
> By the way, personally, I really do not like the phrase β€œphotonic electronβ€. But, I do not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away). The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this β€œc-velocityβ€ does not make them β€œphotonsβ€. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the β€œpush-awayβ€ into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no physical β€œmassβ€. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the β€œparticleβ€ world is so elusive. Assigning β€œplane waveβ€ concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these β€œparticlesβ€. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the β€œparticlesβ€ β€œfallβ€ or β€œget repulsedβ€ by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous β€œfour forcesβ€ of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein’s unified field.
>
> Chandra.
>
>
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30 PM
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin
>
> Hi Chandra
>
> Thank you for the note about replying to β€œgeneralβ€.
>
> Hi John Williamson
>
> Question:
>
> I have been thinking that it may be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single photon planar polarization.
>
> Simplified illustration: The arrows represent force, not motion.
> [cid:64D02DBB63CA4295ADAE1ACD7F2E9132@HPlaptop]
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Chip
>
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19 PM
> To: general@natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general@natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Subject: [General] FW: Photonic electron and spin
>
> general@natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general@natureoflightandparticles.org>
> This is from Chandra:
>
> If all of you consistently send out the emails to the β€œgeneralβ€ as I am doing now and always reply to the same β€œgeneralβ€, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the β€œnatureoflightandparticles.orgβ€. The relevant email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to
> ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu<mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu>
>
>
> For the coming August conference, I would request all of you to add some β€œengineering thinkingβ€ along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference.
> =============================
> Now my response to:
> John D: You have made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach to β€œInteraction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is a simple synthesis of engineering thinking and theoretical formulation thinking.
>
> Why is the Superposition Principle (SP) so successful?
> Mathematically SP represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum (Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids being solutions of Maxwell’s (or classical mechanical stretched string) wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not represent the physical interaction process.
> Note that SP really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven mathematical formalism.[cid:BC946115E05A49BEA4AEAEDDC9F89CC2@HPlaptop] . This [cid:C7E46132C7C446638A55D8947702C167@HPlaptop] is the linear susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger’s Psi is the real physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory! This [cid:319D70059B76488787C423FFA9D3128F@HPlaptop] represents detector’s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process of step-one β€œstimulationβ€ when we take out the β€œdetector constantβ€ Ο‡ out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able [cid:A8E8D094A63747BE8368310410FC1AEA@HPlaptop] . But, Ο‡ CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting β€œengineering thinkingβ€ for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is β€œenergy transferβ€ as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:B406C075525646C39B0643EF70227637@HPlaptop]
>
> Perpetual propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF’s tendency to stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can achieve that state of quiescent β€œnirvanaβ€ only by pushing away the external perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF, they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above its β€œlocalβ€ quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new!
>
> The concept of β€œphotonic electronβ€ being developed by this group easily removes the necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.) of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by energy transfer. Particles are not guided by β€œPilot Wavesβ€. They possess various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play. Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation[cid:BC946115E05A49BEA4AEAEDDC9F89CC2@HPlaptop] due to (now) multiple particles [cid:D8659715259F421CA4474902B4ACDDC6@HPlaptop] . This is the REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new confirmed knowledge!
>
> Chandra.
>
>
> From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:38 AM
> To: Adam K
> Cc: John Williamson; chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen@gmail.com<mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com>; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu<mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu>; 'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green
> Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin
>
> Adam:
>
> Forgive me for butting in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If we could depict space in the room you’re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity, it would look like this:
>
> [GravitationalField]
>
> IMHO electromagnetism is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon like this:
>
> [afield1form]iti
>
> See Wikipedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation#Derivation_from_electromagnetic_theory>: β€œthe curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in timeβ€. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal β€œelectricβ€ waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal β€œmagneticβ€ waveform. But there aren’t actually two different waves at right angles to one another. It’s an electromagnetic wave. Re your question:
>
> Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience?
>
> Superposition is just a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn’t interact with light. But note that its path wasn’t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper, the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself. Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn’t call it a photon any more, you’d call it an electron.
>
> Regards
> John D
>
>
> * It’s maybe be better to refer to vacuum impedance Z0 = βˆš(ΞΌ0/Ξµ0). Light is effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = βˆš(G/Ο). In electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it’s a β€œhow pliableβ€ measure as opposed to a β€œhow stiffβ€ measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = βˆš(1/Ξµ0ΞΌ0).
>
> PS: I’ve got a forum, see http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/<http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/index.php?sid=c5e137e15c020eca37d63f36a65748b5>
>
>
>
> From: Adam K<mailto:afokay@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM
> To: John Duffield<mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com>
> Cc: John Williamson<mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk> ; chandra<mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu> ; Richard Gauthier<mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com> ; A. F. Kracklauer<mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de> ; Stephen Leary<mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk> ; Ralph Penland<mailto:rpenland@gmail.com> ; wfhagen@gmail.com<mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com> ; Hans De Raedt<mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl> ; Mark, Martin van der<mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com> ; David Saint John<mailto:etherdais@gmail.com> ; Timothy Drysdale<mailto:Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk> ; CSc.<mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz> ; Jonathan Weaver<mailto:Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk> ; Rachel<mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com> ; Robert Hadfield<mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk> ; robert hudgins<mailto:hudginswr@msn.com> ; Vivian Robinson<mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au> ; ninasobieraj<mailto:ninasobieraj@tlen.pl> ; ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu<mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu> ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek<mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz> ; Mayank Drolia<mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com> ; Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:mules333@gmail.com> ; Fiona van der Burgt<mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com> ; Michael Wright<mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk> ; Nick Green<mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin
>
> A question for Chandra (or anyone else who's interested):
>
> Take John D's last email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations precisely as Huygens laid out.
>
> Say the Complex Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS (aka ether).
>
> Question: does the interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield@btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com>> wrote:
> Adam/John:
>
> I think it’s crucial to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 Leyden Address<http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html> Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. He said this:
>
> "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.
>
> He said space, not spacetime, and he didn’t say it was curved. He said it was inhomogeneous. Also see this<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html> Baez article where you can read this:
>
> Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial.
>
> Then see Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime<http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014>. Inhomogeneous space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn’t curved in the room you’re in. Instead it’s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again:
>
>
> [EinsteinSpeedofLight]
>
> When you plot the inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your plot. See this explanation<http://bogpaper.com/science-on-sunday-with-john-duffield-gravity/>. Also see the general relativity section of this Baez page<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html> written by physics-FAQ editor Don Koks:
>
> Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers.
>
> Space isn’t curved in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, it is. This is what Percy Hammond and electromagnetic geometry<https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=electromagnetic+geometry> is all about. For a 2D analogy, think of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents the electron’s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton’s electromagnetic field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don’t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom’s gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift.
>
> Wheeler got so much wrong. He talked about a geon, a wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. What he should have talked about, was an electron.
>
> Regards
> John
>
>
> From: John Williamson<mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM
> To: Adam K<mailto:afokay@gmail.com> ; chandra<mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu>
> Cc: Richard Gauthier<mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com> ; A. F. Kracklauer<mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de> ; Stephen Leary<mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk> ; Ralph Penland<mailto:rpenland@gmail.com> ; wfhagen@gmail.com<mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com> ; Hans De Raedt<mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl> ; Mark, Martin van der<mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com> ; David Saint John<mailto:etherdais@gmail.com> ; Timothy Drysdale<mailto:Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk> ; CSc.<mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz> ; Jonathan Weaver<mailto:Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk> ; Rachel<mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com> ; Robert Hadfield<mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk> ; robert hudgins<mailto:hudginswr@msn.com> ; Vivian Robinson<mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au> ; ninasobieraj<mailto:ninasobieraj@tlen.pl> ; ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu<mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu> ; 'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek<mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz> ; John Duffield<mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com> ; Mayank Drolia<mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com> ; Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:mules333@gmail.com> ; Fiona van der Burgt<mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com> ; Michael Wright<mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk> ; Nick Green<mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk>
> Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin
>
> Hello Adam, John Chandra and everyone.
>
> Delighted to have got some discussion going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions? Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others). Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the point of what we do or do not really know.
>
> The standard formulations (and these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for both is still too simple.
>
> However to answer the question: the evidence comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation, experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation, however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers "geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through space, but it is weak in both senses of the word.
>
> Interesting thread on the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists (I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone?
>
> Regards, John.
> ________________________________
> From: Adam K [afokay@gmail.com<mailto:afokay@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:34 AM
> To: chandra
> Cc: John Williamson; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen@gmail.com<mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com>; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu<mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu>; 'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green
> Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin
> Hi Chandra,
>
> I liked your tribute to Caulfield a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals, and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm or to the fact that plane waves don't exist.
>
> A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw
>
> I didn't follow your point about the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.)
>
> I'm onboard with your fundamental point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime?
>
> Also, the other attachment seems to be corrupted for me. Resend?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Adam
>
> PS - incidentally the constancy of c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation, i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written c.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, chandra <chandra@phys.uconn.edu<mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu>> wrote:
> Hello Adam and Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that β€œSpaceβ€ is the β€œmotherβ€ of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as yet). β˜Ί The β€œvacuumβ€ or the β€œspaceβ€ holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of β€œComplex Tension Field (or CTF)β€. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear oscillations (stable particles) as various kinds of closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the broad concept of β€œphotonics electronsβ€.
> The field CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency shifts due to detectors’ velocities. We do need a single complex field like CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of everything.
> The attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in my recent book:
> http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves
>
> Sincerely,
> Chandra.
>
> From: Adam K [mailto:afokay@gmail.com<mailto:afokay@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM
> To: John Williamson
> Cc: Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen@gmail.com<mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com>; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu<mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu>; 'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green
>
> Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> Why do you say this?
>
> space does not support torsion,
>
> Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of circulation.
>
> Adam
> On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John Williamson" <John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin "up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum clockwise at 180 degrees.
>
> What one needs to do is model the internal flow in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r" (radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p (m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin (hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it?
>
> This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not fully consistent with (all of) experiment.
>
> Lets go back to kid analogy. Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle. Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking. They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion, but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin.
>
> Now this is good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure. Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time (actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be. Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes (more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like me!) are more likely to think of it like this.
>
> This may sound overly complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against them!
>
> Cheers, John.
> ________________________________
> From: John Duffield [johnduffield@btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com>]
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:23 PM
> To: John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg
> Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu<mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu>; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel OΕ΅mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen@gmail.com<mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin
> John
> Sorry I haven’t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain’t cheese. And like the β€œquantum bicycleβ€ is doesn’t have to be spinning on one axis only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you’re a kid pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn’t some kid, it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself, so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And even that isn’t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes it’s isn’t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it’s rotating like this:
>
> [ring_tor1_anim].
>
> Every which way. But there’s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence says it is.
> As regard field and force, IMHO there’s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. It’s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn’t work because you need two fields to have a force*. It’s missing the very essence of what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact that they’re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren’t doing this. They are photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this: β€the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and Bβ€ There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from field interactions.
> Darn, I have to go. I’ll get back to you some more later.
> Regards
> John
>
> * forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment
>
>
> From: John Williamson<mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM
> To: John Duffield<mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com> ; Vivian Robinson<mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au> ; Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:mules333@gmail.com>
> Cc: Richard Gauthier<mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com> ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek"<mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz> ; A. F. Kracklauer<mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de> ; Adam K<mailto:afokay@gmail.com> ; ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu<mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu> ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri<mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu> ; Hans De Raedt<mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl> ; David Saint John<mailto:etherdais@gmail.com> ; Fiona van der Burgt<mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com> ; Jonathan Weaver<mailto:Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk> ; Mark, Martin van der<mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com> ; Mayank Drolia<mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com> ; Michael Wright<mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk> ; Nick Green<mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk> ; "prof. Ing. Pavel OΕ΅mera, CSc."<mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz> ; Rachel<mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com> ; Ralph Penland<mailto:rpenland@gmail.com> ; Robert Hadfield<mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk> ; robert hudgins<mailto:hudginswr@msn.com> ; Stephen Leary<mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk> ; Timothy Drysdale<mailto:Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk> ; wfhagen@gmail.com<mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: Photonic electron and spin
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter (2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself).
>
> I think I'd better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a vector of vectors),
>
> o be more precise, in the usual relativistic formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA (modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar, even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is for.
>
> You can see the difference simply because the field has six components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz. Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex particles of the sort we wish to describe.
>
> Now a force IS a vector. The question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So , for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> John.
> ________________________________
> From: John Duffield [johnduffield@btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com>]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:01 AM
> To: Vivian Robinson; Andrew Meulenberg
> Cc: Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek"; A. F. Kracklauer; Adam K; ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu<mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu>; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel OΕ΅mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; wfhagen@gmail.com<mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin
> Andrew:
>
> Viv’s description sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion.
>
> Viv/Andrew:
>
> I’d like to stress that the photon is an electromagnetic field variation, and the electron has an electromagnetic field. The thing we call an electric field isn’t really a field, it’s the linear force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant about this, but I really do think it’s important.
>
> All:
>
> I think physics is in a pretty pass when physicists can’t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And IMHO there’s not much point talking about selectrons if you don’t know what an electron is. Or much else for that matter.
>
> Regards
> John
>
>
> From: Vivian Robinson<mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM
> To: Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:mules333@gmail.com>
> Cc: Richard Gauthier<mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com> ; "'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek"<mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz> ; A. F. Kracklauer<mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de> ; Adam K<mailto:afokay@gmail.com> ; ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu<mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu> ; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri<mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu> ; Hans De Raedt<mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl> ; David Saint John<mailto:etherdais@gmail.com> ; Fiona van der Burgt<mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com> ; John Duffield<mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com> ; John Williamson<mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk> ; Jonathan Weaver<mailto:jonathan.weaver@glasgow.ac.uk> ; Mark, Martin van der<mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com> ; Mayank Drolia<mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com> ; Michael Wright<mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk> ; Nick Green<mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk> ; "prof. Ing. Pavel OΕ΅mera, CSc."<mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz> ; Rachel<mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com> ; Ralph Penland<mailto:rpenland@gmail.com> ; Robert Hadfield<mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk> ; robert hudgins<mailto:hudginswr@msn.com> ; Stephen Leary<mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk> ; Timothy Drysdale<mailto:tim.drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk> ; wfhagen@gmail.com<mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Photonic electron and spin
>
> Dear Andrew and all,
>
> I refer to your question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons, but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation, frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things out.
>
> With that as background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron, like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror image of electron.
>
> http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU
>
> Figure 12 gives a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way it is spinning until its spin is measured.
>
> I hope this helps your understanding.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Viv Robinson
>
> On 10/02/2015, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333@gmail.com<mailto:mules333@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Richard,
> You answered my request for a reference to your statement "A non-moving electron’s spin is undefined until it’s measured with respect to something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with:
> "I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some measurement axis."
> I suspected that the reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it.
>
> I am starting a new thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron, explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better understanding of nuclear particles and physics.
> I will need to describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point.
>
> The moebius electron is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle creature. It has been made that way in special cases with an immense amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself (like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic E-field out-directed to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification' process.
> This mechanism creates the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles. (Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches off' and leaves the charges independent.)
> When stationary, the electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in all directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis. However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle. This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and quantization of the atomic-electron orbits.
> Once these things are understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels, and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g. the neutrino) and begins with the photon.
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield@btconnect.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
> <Deep_water_wave[1].gif>
> <image[3].png>
> <image001.png>
> <image002.png>
> <image003.png>
> <image004.png>
> <image005.png>
> <image006.png>
> <image007.png>
> <image008.jpg>
> <image009.gif>
> <image010.jpg>
> <image011.gif>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
</PRE>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Martin:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think the quantization of the photon is an intrinsic property of the
photon because the emitters and absorbers <EM>are</EM> photons. We don’t call
them that, and they’re usually in an atom, but we can make them out of light,
and we can diffract them, and when we’ve finished with them we can turn them
back into photons. I don't know if you saw <A
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNg819PiZY">Leonard Susskind trying to
explain the Higgs boson</A>, but at 2 minutes 50 seconds he was waving his
marker round* saying angular momentum is quantized. See the red dot at the top
left below? </DIV>
<DIV><IMG title=Deep_water_wave style="DISPLAY: inline" alt=Deep_water_wave
src="cid:6E24C7D753A04BF2AF6735B4D022C77C@HPlaptop" width=390 height=256></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now roll your finger round and round. Do it fast, or do it slow, but always
roll it round the same loop. It’s like the wave height is always the same
regardless of wavelength. And there it is, hidden in plain sight, the amplitude
is always the same regardless of wavelength: </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><IMG title=image
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px"
border=0 alt=image src="cid:F06107C022B745119D61CDAE1D80A4E0@HPlaptop"
width=1167 height=716></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Hence there’s only one wavelength you can use to make an electron, where
the wavelength is 4Ο€ times the amplitude. Hence your electron is always a
511keV electron. But maybe it’s better to say the quantum nature of
light is something to do with the very nature of space itself. Or as chandra
would call it, the complex tension field. Like it’s got an elastic limit or a
β€œ<A href="http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html">saturation point</A>β€ or
something. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards</DIV>
<DIV>John D</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>* also see at 3:22 where Susskind says a field is a condition of space.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV><B>From:</B> <A title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">Mark, Martin van der</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:50 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the
problem</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>Dear
John (Williamson),</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>Thank
you for your explanation about polarized light and photons. I fully support what
you have said.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>Then
again there is always something I have in the back of my mind, and it is very
much related to this. I am referring to the quantization of the photon: Is it an
<B>intrinsic</B> property of the photon, or is it the result the structure of
boundary conditions given by emitter and absorber intermediated by an
unquantized EM-wave?</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>We
mostly believe the first, and incidentally, this would , with high degree of
certainty IMPLY the existence of circularly polarized light as the base
state!</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>Harry
Atwater gave a talk at SPIE Photonics West and he referred to photons being
quantized and proof of plasmons being quantized in the same way. I asked him
about the photon quantization afterwards, he said I should look up Leonard
Mandel, 1980ies (he died in 2001 so we cannot ask him).</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>Haven’t
come round to do so yet…</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>Best,
Martin</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>I
will try to find out, but help is very welcome</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>This
may be a starting point:</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'><A
href="http://www.nature.com/milestones/milephotons/full/milephotons11.html">http://www.nature.com/milestones/milephotons/full/milephotons11.html</A></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=DE
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Arial","sans-serif"; COLOR: navy'>Dr.
Martin B. van der Mark</SPAN><SPAN lang=DE style="COLOR: navy"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Arial","sans-serif"; COLOR: navy'>Principal
Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: navy'></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: navy'></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Arial","sans-serif"; COLOR: navy'>Philips
Research Europe - Eindhoven</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: navy'></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Arial","sans-serif"; COLOR: navy'>High
Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: navy'></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Arial","sans-serif"; COLOR: navy'>Prof.
Holstlaan 4</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: navy'></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Arial","sans-serif"; COLOR: navy'>5656
AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: navy'></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Arial","sans-serif"; COLOR: navy'>Tel: +31
40 2747548</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"'> General
[mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>John Williamson<BR><B>Sent:</B> donderdag 19 februari 2015
8:27<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of
the problem</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Gentle
people,<BR><BR>I think this discussion starts to get to the heart of the
problem. THough I am sorry that I have very little time now or for a few days to
do much to the proper argument here. Here goes though ...<BR><BR>None of us
understand and encompass all that is known.<BR><BR>Even when we base this on
empirical experiment - our own views colour our judgement. The environment
in which we work has a huge body of experiment which we need to make sense of in
our own heads - a huge intellectual acheivement for each of us and so hard to
get past. This is why certain of the tribes of physics cannot now sit down in
the same room. Even if they happen to be in the same physical room they THINK
they are in different rooms!<BR><BR>I think one of the big mysteries is the
workings of quantum spins. In particular, one such is how a SINGLE photon can
carry exactly one unit of angular momentum left (right circularly polarised) or
one right (left polarised). However, as you have argued, for dipole radiation it
carries exactly none at all (linear polarised).<BR><BR>Why do I assert then
that photon should carry angular momentum intrinsically, flatly
contradicting what Chip and Chandra have been discussing, it is because I have
at least one foot in a different tribe - Those elementary particle
physicists.<BR><BR>A key experiment here is positronium decay, and it s initial
spin status. One may have either ortho-positronium (spins opposite) or
para-positronium (spins parallel). Spin zero or spin 1 then. THe former decays
ONLY to two photons, the latter to three. The former decays relatively quickly
the latter relatively slowly. For a high energy pysicist this is
incontrovertivle proof that the proper eigenstate of the photon is spin 1 -
carrying one unit of angular momentum. Why? 1-1 = 0 and although 1/2 plus 1/2 =
1 this process is not observed to happen just 1-1+1 or 1-1 -1. There you go. In
the most elementary photon creation process of all the photons act as though
they carry maximal angular momentum. This is why elementary particle theorists
think the base states are circular - and there is really no such thing as a
linearly polarised photon!<BR><BR>Conclusion: in collective systems the base
process is usually dipole - linear. In elementary processes it is usually an
eigenstate of angular momentum - circular.<BR><BR>Another example from the
atomic physics tribe - atomic transitions - photon carries one unit angular
momentum if initial and final states differ by one unit.<BR><BR>Of course one
can devise collective systems which give out circularly polarised photons
(helical antenna) - and do experiments to measure the angular momentum of a
photon beam (polarised light on a torsion balance). Conclusions- consistent with
hbar per photon.<BR><BR>Equally, one can linearly polarise the gamma rays from
annihilation (even if this is a bit hard) or spin-one states from atomic
transitions - dead easy - just use a lnear polariser that becomes part of the
system (seen) by the photon...<BR><BR>Remember- the easiest person to fool is
oneself (as proved by the anonymous laureate!) ...<BR><BR>Conclusion: any theory
we come up with must do both linear and circular-equally. No wimping out
allowed!<BR><BR>Regards, John.</SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">
<HR align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV id=divRpF183340>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>
General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of chandra [chandra@phys.uconn.edu]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday,
February 18, 2015 11:31 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion'<BR><B>Subject:</B> [General] Photonic electron and
spin</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><I><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Photons cannot carry angular
momentum by virtue of NIW-Property!</SPAN></I></B><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Chip:
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">I am with you
100% that photons cannot β€œcarryβ€ spin angular momentum! This has been
another misconception pumped into physics by particle physicists for lack of
appreciation of towering successes of classical E&M. Unfortunately, it has
happened because classical physics introduced the mistaken concept of
β€œInterference of Wavesβ€, ignoring the process-mapping interpretations of
working theories. Plane polarized light do not impart angular momentum while
interacting with material particles (dipole-like responses). Observations show
that only so-called β€œcircularβ€ or β€œellipticallyβ€ polarized light could
impart angular momentum on dipoles. We cannot generate such beams.
Process-mapping thinking of physics is simpler and more elegant.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"> By virtue of
Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), two phase-steady orthogonally polarized beams,
combined with 90-degree phase delay, cannot create circular or elliptically
polarized (helically spinning) E-vector. Both the beams just benignly
co-propagate. But, a dipole can respond to each of the two vectors when there is
a quarter cycle phase delay between the two polarized beams. So, a dipole can
effectively carry out an β€œangular momentumβ€ like spin under the stimulation
of appropriately superposed set of beams! A dipole, by definition, can
execute a uniaxial stretching in only one direction at a time. This is also the
reason why orthogonally polarized beams cannot generate interference or
superposition fringes! The dipoles separately respond to one or the other beam
at a time and if resonant, absorbs energy from one or the other beam, no
superposition effect (fringes). Orthogonally polarized light beams are not
β€œincoherentβ€! Light is never β€œincoherentβ€; the detector’s response
characteristics determine the beams’ correlation property, or the β€œviability
of the fringesβ€. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has
assigned detectors’ physical properties as β€œOptical Coherenceβ€ properties!
Classical EM wave propagation physics and Jones’ matrix analysis have built-in
formulation obeying the NIW-property; sadly they do not explicitly mention this.
I have explained these stuff in the β€œpolarizationβ€ chapter in my book,
β€œCausal Physics:….β€ <A
href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168"
target=_blank>http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves&sprefix=Causal+physics%2Cstripbooks%2C168</A></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #1f497d"> ]</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">We have been
assigning too many quantum and material properties of interacting material
particles to light for well over a century and diverted physics thinking in a
wrong direction! </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">By the way,
personally, I really do not like the phrase β€œphotonic electronβ€. But, I do
not want to challenge it as yet simply because, I do not have a mathematically
worked model for electron as a self-looped, resonantly stable, oscillation of
the CTF (ether or vacuum field, if you prefer). The fundamental difference is
that photon wave-packets (diffractively following HF principle) are LINEAR
excitation of the CTF; hence propagates perpetually in the CTF (pushed away).
The NONLINEARLY excited self-looped oscillation cannot be pushed away laterally
by the CTF. It perceives that it is already pushing away the perturbing force at
the highest possible velocity, c (epsilon-not, mu-not). But, this
β€œc-velocityβ€ does not make them β€œphotonsβ€. They are just another kind of
excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation
makes the β€œpush-awayβ€ into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving
rise to the particle-like universe. This is the root of inertia. There are no
physical β€œmassβ€. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped
oscillation also explains why the β€œparticleβ€ world is so elusive. Assigning
β€œplane waveβ€ concept to particles is our illusionary thinking. The phases of
the oscillation of a macro pendulum and those of self-loped oscillations of
electrons and protons can be represented by the same mathematical harmonic
function. That does not make wave-particle duality as the final reality! The
translation of these inertial oscillations require presence of appropriate
potential gradients of the CTF in the vicinity of these β€œparticlesβ€. The
particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various
self-looped oscillations. So the β€œparticlesβ€ β€œfallβ€ or β€œget
repulsedβ€ by these potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous
β€œfour forcesβ€ of physics. They are just four different kinds of gradients in
the same CTF generated by the well-defined different kinds of complex
oscillations. Thus, CTF is a possible postulate for Einstein’s unified field.
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Chandra.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><A name=_MailEndCompose><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN></A><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>
General [<A
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Chip Akins<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:30
PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] FW: Photonic electron and
spin</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi Chandra</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Thank you for the note about
replying to β€œgeneralβ€.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi John Williamson</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Question:</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">I have been thinking that it may
be that photon imparts angular momentum to a particle, even if the photon EM
wave is not spinning. The EM wave may just have an angular force component which
causes the imparting of spin angular momentum when it becomes incident upon a
particle. This might explain our perception of photon spin? It seems this would
alleviate the necessity for spin state superposition and still allow for single
photon planar polarization.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Simplified illustration: The
arrows represent force, not motion.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><IMG id=Picture_x0020_1 border=0
src="cid:23FC217998C44E228BFF4204A464B1AC@HPlaptop" width=436
height=329></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Thoughts?</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Chip</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>
General [<A
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target=_blank>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>chandra<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19
PM<BR><B>To:</B> <A href="mailto:general@natureoflightandparticles.org"
target=_blank>general@natureoflightandparticles.org</A><BR><B>Subject:</B>
[General] FW: Photonic electron and spin</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #1f497d"><A
href="mailto:general@natureoflightandparticles.org"
target=_blank>general@natureoflightandparticles.org</A></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">This is from
Chandra:</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">If all of you
consistently send out the emails to the β€œgeneralβ€ as I am doing now and
always reply to the same β€œgeneralβ€, then all these email-discussions will be
automatically archived in the β€œnatureoflightandparticles.orgβ€. The relevant
email with all instructions were sent by my student, Michael Ambroselli. If you
lost track of that email, please, send a separate email to</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><A
href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">For the coming
August conference, I would request all of you to add some β€œengineering
thinkingβ€ along with the incorporation of real and potential experimental
verification(s) of your concepts (papers). This will be very helpful for our
optical engineers who are the dominant attendees of the SPIE conference.
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">=============================</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Now my response
to:</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">John D: You have
made several excellent points from the standpoint of my personal biased approach
to β€œInteraction Process Mapping Epistemology (Thinking).; which is
</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #1f497d">a </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">simple synthesis of engineering thinking
and theoretical formulation thinking. </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><I><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Why is the
Superposition Principle (SP) so successful? </SPAN></I></B><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Mathematically SP
represents Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain. SP, for the EM
waves, represents mathematical expression for the simultaneous co-existence and
co-propagation and/or cross-propagation of all wave AMPLITUDES that the vacuum
(Complex Tension Field, or CTF) can sustain within a particular volume under
consideration within its LINEAR restoration capability. This is my
interpretation for the mathematical validity of the linear sum of sinusoids
being solutions of Maxwell’s (or classical mechanical stretched string)
wave equation. NIW is built into our wave amplitude equation. It does not
represent the physical interaction process.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"> Note that SP
really is not measurable directly. We measure physical transformation
experienced by our detectors; whose energy absorption is the square-modulus of
the sum of all the stimulating amplitudes simultaneously exciting it. This is
why I am trying to present Superposition Effect (SE) as the better IPM-E driven
mathematical formalism.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><IMG id=_x0000_i1027
border=0 src="cid:59F3338182BC4AD9972C5877F226C8CB@HPlaptop" width=77
height=20></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"> . This
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><IMG id=_x0000_i1028 border=0
src="cid:E6AC2C5FB94C4E3CB1D34BA2542F5150@HPlaptop" width=10
height=20></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">is the linear
susceptibility to stimulation by the wave. Schrodinger’s Psi is the real
physical amplitude stimulation. It is not just an abstract mathematical
probability amplitude only! QM has more physical reality built into it than the
Copenhagen Interpretation has allowed us to extract out of the beautiful theory!
This </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><IMG id=_x0000_i1029 border=0
src="cid:754713B81CDF4E04A85CCE3D4C06324F@HPlaptop" width=73
height=20></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">represents
detector’s physical conjoint amplitude stimulation. Unfortunately, the
mathematical rule deprives us from recognizing the underlying physical process
of step-one β€œstimulationβ€ when we take out the β€œdetector constantβ€ Ο‡
out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><IMG id=_x0000_i1030 border=0
src="cid:441849AFBE834E458BF9C1C896BB534B@HPlaptop" width=73
height=20></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">. But, Ο‡ CAN
BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This is the engineering
reality! This is why I am promoting β€œengineering thinkingβ€ for the
physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is β€œenergy transferβ€ as
the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><IMG id=_x0000_i1031 border=0
src="cid:A3DE9C700F1648F49E17EC7951A302D4@HPlaptop" width=47
height=20></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Perpetual
propensity of wave propagation, without any kinetic assistance from the
emitters, built into the wave equation, comes from CTF’s tendency to
stay in its state of quiescent (but energetic) state of equilibrium. It can
achieve that state of quiescent β€œnirvanaβ€ only by pushing away the external
perturbation dumped on it by QM oscillating dipole. Since the CTF does not have
the capability to assimilate (absorb) this perturbation energy; it has to keep
on pushing it away perpetually. That is why EM waves, once excited on the CTF,
they keep on propagating across the entire universe. This is the physical
explanation behind the generic Principle of Conservation of Energy (CE). Note
that the waves do not have their own identity or own energy. They are simply
excitations of the CTF due to perturbation energy dumped on it; which is above
its β€œlocalβ€ quiescent energy. The NIW-property has been underscored by
Huygens when he proposed how wave propagates. It is nothing new!</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"> The concept of
β€œphotonic electronβ€ being developed by this group easily removes the
necessity of the ad hoc postulate of wave-particle duality. Once one accepts
that particles are localized resonant self-looped oscillations (toroidal, etc.)
of the same CTF along with two-step processes behind quantum transitions, Psi
and then Psi*Psi, one can easily appreciate that the phase of the self-looped
oscillation plays the key role in particle-particle excitation, followed by
energy transfer. Particles are not guided by β€œPilot Wavesβ€. They possess
various internal oscillations of different kinds corresponding to different
observable properties, and hence phases. Depending upon the kind of interaction
process the appropriate Psi with the corresponding phase comes into play.
Superposition Effect (SE) due to simultaneous excitation imposed by multiple
particle on the same detector can now be treated like wave-excitation, as long
as the detector is quantum mechanical. The energy transfer is the square modulus
of the conjoint stimulation</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><IMG
id=_x0000_i1032 border=0 src="cid:59F3338182BC4AD9972C5877F226C8CB@HPlaptop"
width=77 height=20></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"> due to
(now) multiple particles </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><IMG id=_x0000_i1033
border=0 src="cid:823044BA61AA4D96B6A14B536D7FEDEF@HPlaptop" width=18
height=23></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">. This is the
REALITY. The phrase, wave-particle duality, represents our lack of detailed
knowledge about the interaction processes. It should not be made into a new
confirmed knowledge!</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Chandra.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> John
Duffield [<A href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
target=_blank>mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com</A>] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday,
February 18, 2015 5:38 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Adam K<BR><B>Cc:</B> John Williamson;
chandra; Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; <A
href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target=_blank>wfhagen@gmail.com</A>; Hans De
Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan
Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj;
<A href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A>; 'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek;
Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick
Green<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Photonic electron and spin</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Adam:</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Forgive me for butting
in. But IMHO a gravitational field is where the refractive index* is altered. If
we could depict space in the room you’re in, and exaggerate the inhomogeneity,
it would look like this:</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> <IMG
id=_x0000_i1034 border=0 alt=GravitationalField
src="cid:A6C0E0508BA34012B1979C5E6DFA85D2@HPlaptop" width=242
height=131></SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>IMHO electromagnetism
is very different, it involves spatial curvature such that we depict a photon
like this:</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'><IMG id=_x0000_i1035
border=0 alt=afield1form src="cid:ADF13AE431604D0A8510553729E2CC25@HPlaptop"
width=637 height=157>iti </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>See <A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation#Derivation_from_electromagnetic_theory"
target=_blank>Wikipedia</A>: <EM><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>β€œthe curl operator on one side of
these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution,
while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the
other field, is first order in timeβ€</SPAN></EM>. The spatial derivative of
the above curve is the sinusoidal β€œelectricβ€ waveform, the time-derivative
is the sinusoidal β€œmagneticβ€ waveform. But there aren’t actually two
different waves at right angles to one another. It’s an electromagnetic wave.
Re your question:</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><EM><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Question: does the interaction
of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If so, why is the
superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience?</SPAN></EM><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Superposition is just
a wave thing. One wave rides over another. Imagine a little wave traversing the
picture above. It goes up the hump, then down the other side. Then it carries on
as if nothing has happened. So you think light doesn’t interact with light.
But note that its path wasn’t straight. And that if the hump had been steeper,
the little wave would have been so bent it would have begun to encounter itself.
Only if it ended up going round in circles, you wouldn’t call it a photon any
more, you’d call it an electron. </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Regards</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>John D</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>* It’s maybe be
better to refer to vacuum impedance Z</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>0</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> = βˆš(ΞΌ</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>0</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>/Ξµ</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>0</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>). Light is
effectively alternating displacement current, and impedance is like resistance
to alternating current. Note that in elastodynamics a shear wave travels at a
speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = βˆš(G/Ο). In
electrodynamics we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it’s a β€œhow
pliableβ€ measure as opposed to a β€œhow stiffβ€ measure. But the expression
we use is essentially the same: c = βˆš(1/Ξµ</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>0</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>ΞΌ</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>0</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>).</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>PS: I’ve got a
forum, see <A
title=http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/index.php?sid=c5e137e15c020eca37d63f36a65748b5
href="http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/index.php?sid=c5e137e15c020eca37d63f36a65748b5"
target=_blank>http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/</A></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> <A
title=afokay@gmail.com href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target=_blank>Adam K</A>
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>
Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> <A
title=johnduffield@btconnect.com href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
target=_blank>John Duffield</A> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Cc:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> <A
title=John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
target=_blank>John Williamson</A> ; <A title=chandra@phys.uconn.edu
href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu" target=_blank>chandra</A> ; <A
title=richgauthier@gmail.com href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Richard Gauthier</A> ; <A title=af.kracklauer@web.de
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target=_blank>A. F. Kracklauer</A> ; <A
title=sleary@vavi.co.uk href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk" target=_blank>Stephen
Leary</A> ; <A title=rpenland@gmail.com href="mailto:rpenland@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Ralph Penland</A> ; <A title=wfhagen@gmail.com
href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target=_blank>wfhagen@gmail.com</A> ; <A
title=h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl href="mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" target=_blank>Hans
De Raedt</A> ; <A title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target=_blank>Mark, Martin van
der</A> ; <A title=etherdais@gmail.com href="mailto:etherdais@gmail.com"
target=_blank>David Saint John</A> ; <A title=Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Timothy Drysdale</A> ; <A
title=osmera@fme.vutbr.cz href="mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz"
target=_blank>CSc.</A> ; <A title=Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Jonathan Weaver</A> ;
<A title=QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com href="mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Rachel</A> ; <A title=Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Robert Hadfield</A> ;
<A title=hudginswr@msn.com href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target=_blank>robert
hudgins</A> ; <A title=viv@etpsemra.com.au href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au"
target=_blank>Vivian Robinson</A> ; <A title=ninasobieraj@tlen.pl
href="mailto:ninasobieraj@tlen.pl" target=_blank>ninasobieraj</A> ; <A
title=ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A> ; <A title=matousek@fme.vutbr.cz
href="mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz" target=_blank>'doc. Ing. Radomil
MatouΕ΅ek</A> ; <A title=er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com
href="mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com" target=_blank>Mayank Drolia</A> ; <A
title=mules333@gmail.com href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target=_blank>Andrew
Meulenberg</A> ; <A title=fionavdburgt@gmail.com
href="mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com" target=_blank>Fiona van der Burgt</A> ; <A
title=mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk"
target=_blank>Michael Wright</A> ; <A title=nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk
href="mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk" target=_blank>Nick Green</A>
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> Re:
Photonic electron and spin</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>A question for Chandra
(or anyone else who's interested): </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Take John D's last
email about inhomogenous space as assumed. So the 'warping' of space by energy
is actually just an alteration of refractive index, affecting EM oscillations
precisely as Huygens laid out. </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Say the Complex
Tension Field is spacetime. Thus an EM oscillation is an oscillation of the CTS
(aka ether). </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Question: does the
interaction of light with light suddenly become nonlinear in this picture? If
so, why is the superposition principle so brilliantly confirmed by experience?
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Thanks,</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Adam
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>On Tue, Feb 17, 2015
at 8:24 AM, John Duffield <<A href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
target=_blank>johnduffield@btconnect.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Adam/John:</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>I think it’s crucial
to appreciate a few things about gravity. In his 1920 <A
title=http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
href="http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html"
target=_blank>Leyden Address</A> Einstein talked about space as the aether of
general relativity. He said this:</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><EM><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>"empty space" in its
physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to
describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials
g</SPAN></EM><EM><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>mn</SPAN></EM><EM><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>), has, I think,
finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty</SPAN></EM><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>. </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>He said <EM><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>space</SPAN></EM>, not spacetime,
and he didn’t say it was curved. He said it was <EM><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>inhomogeneous</SPAN></EM>. Also see
<A href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html"
target=_blank>this</A> Baez article where you can read this:</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><EM><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Similarly, in general
relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the
curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The
distinction is crucial.</SPAN></EM><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Then see <A
title=http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014
href="http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014" target=_blank>Inhomogeneous
Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime</A>. Inhomogeneous
space is the reality that underlies curved spacetime is. Space isn’t curved in
the room you’re in. Instead it’s inhomogeneous, such that the speed of light
is spatially variable. Einstein said this time and time again: </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'><IMG id=_x0000_i1036
border=0 alt=EinsteinSpeedofLight
src="cid:278E9426DFCA448AA68ED16A7A294638@HPlaptop" width=484
height=335></SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>When you plot the
inhomogeneity or the coordinate speed of light, you see a curvature of your
plot. See <A
href="http://bogpaper.com/science-on-sunday-with-john-duffield-gravity/"
target=_blank>this explanation</A>. Also see the general relativity section of
<A
href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html"
target=_blank>this Baez page</A> written by physics-FAQ editor Don
Koks:</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><EM><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Einstein talked about
the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to
the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity
[Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping
with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the
two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot
claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take
place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with
position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above
by ceiling and floor observers.</SPAN></EM><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Space isn’t curved
in a gravitational field. However in an electromagnetic field, <EM><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>it is</SPAN></EM>. This is what
Percy Hammond and <A
href="https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=electromagnetic+geometry"
target=_blank>electromagnetic geometry</A> is all about. For a 2D analogy, think
of the bowling ball in the rubber sheet, but throw away the bowling ball. Now
grab the rubber sheet in your left hand, and turn it clockwise. That represents
the electron’s electromagnetic field. Now grab the rubber sheet in your right
and and turn it anticlockwise. That represents the proton’s electromagnetic
field. Now repeat with your hands as close as you can get them. The clockwise
and anticlockwise twists don’t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a
tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom’s
gravitational field. A better analogy would employ pressure in a bulk rather
than tension in a sheet, but hopefully you get the drift. </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Wheeler got so much
wrong. He talked about a geon, <EM><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>a wave which is held together in a
confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field
energy</SPAN></EM>. What he should have talked about, was an <EM><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>electron</SPAN></EM>.
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Regards</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>John </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> <A
title=John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
target=_blank>John Williamson</A> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>
Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:53 AM</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> <A
title=afokay@gmail.com href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target=_blank>Adam K</A> ;
<A title=chandra@phys.uconn.edu href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>chandra</A> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Cc:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> <A
title=richgauthier@gmail.com href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Richard Gauthier</A> ; <A title=af.kracklauer@web.de
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target=_blank>A. F. Kracklauer</A> ; <A
title=sleary@vavi.co.uk href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk" target=_blank>Stephen
Leary</A> ; <A title=rpenland@gmail.com href="mailto:rpenland@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Ralph Penland</A> ; <A title=wfhagen@gmail.com
href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target=_blank>wfhagen@gmail.com</A> ; <A
title=h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl href="mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" target=_blank>Hans
De Raedt</A> ; <A title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target=_blank>Mark, Martin van
der</A> ; <A title=etherdais@gmail.com href="mailto:etherdais@gmail.com"
target=_blank>David Saint John</A> ; <A title=Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Timothy Drysdale</A> ; <A
title=osmera@fme.vutbr.cz href="mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz"
target=_blank>CSc.</A> ; <A title=Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Jonathan Weaver</A> ;
<A title=QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com href="mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Rachel</A> ; <A title=Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Robert Hadfield</A> ;
<A title=hudginswr@msn.com href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target=_blank>robert
hudgins</A> ; <A title=viv@etpsemra.com.au href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au"
target=_blank>Vivian Robinson</A> ; <A title=ninasobieraj@tlen.pl
href="mailto:ninasobieraj@tlen.pl" target=_blank>ninasobieraj</A> ; <A
title=ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A> ; <A title=matousek@fme.vutbr.cz
href="mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz" target=_blank>'doc. Ing. Radomil
MatouΕ΅ek</A> ; <A title=johnduffield@btconnect.com
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target=_blank>John Duffield</A> ; <A
title=er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com href="mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Mayank Drolia</A> ; <A title=mules333@gmail.com
href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target=_blank>Andrew Meulenberg</A> ; <A
title=fionavdburgt@gmail.com href="mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Fiona van der Burgt</A> ; <A title=mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk
href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk" target=_blank>Michael Wright</A> ; <A
title=nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk href="mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk"
target=_blank>Nick Green</A> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> RE:
Photonic electron and spin</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Hello
Adam, John Chandra and everyone.<BR><BR>Delighted to have got some discussion
going there! You are quite right to pull me up, Adam, on that authoritative
sounding statement. We must have no respect for authority (least of all me!) and
remain free-thinking. Yes indeed ... and this is why I said that this depends on
whether or not one allows torsion into the "path". what I should perhaps have
said is "of course in reality there is not track- just the fields themselves and
their interaction amongst each other". Much better. The question then is can the
interacting field-elements maintain (or constitute) a torsion? .. My answer to
this would be yes - and indeed it was by introducing a mechanical torsion into
the path that Martin and I found our double-looped photon in the first place and
a reduction of that implicit torsion that gives rise to the lowest-energy
configuration. That this then also minimises the integral field energy may be
seen as either a bonus or, perhaps better, as the very origin of the torsion in
the first place. The question is - if there is a torsion (or a tension as in
Chandra's case) to what does one ascribe it? Space? the fields? Interactions?
Maxwell's equations? Jan Hilgevoord asked the interesting question in his
article - "Space - arena or illusion?". My own view is that it makes little
sense to ascribe things to one thing alone (and hence exclude others).
Interactions are what one observes and one should take the WHOLE process
as the thing observed, not any parts that may help us simplify it but lose the
point of what we do or do not really know.<BR><BR>The standard formulations (and
these are good - at least to a very good approximation!) would put the dynamics
down merely to an energy consideration in the Hamiltonian or an action in the
Lagrangian formulation (leading to an interference between different paths in a
path integral). There is room for further thinking here as I think the basis for
both is still too simple. <BR><BR>However to answer the question: the evidence
comes from experiment: if I rotate an object in space it does not appear to
exert a significant torque on an adjacent object in space. Certainly not enough
to deflect a photon from its path. The only impediment to rotation,
experimentally, appears to be rotational inertia which can be described in terms
of the rigididity of the object under consideration and the inertia of its
elements. There does appear to be evidence for a universal frame of rotation,
however, and this brings us into the realm of Mach's principle and experimental
evidence for Frame dragging - all very interesting. We must not get seduced by
any idea, however beautiful, into ascribing a magnitude to it not supported by
observation. Space is "curved" in Einsteins general relativity, for example, but
this is not strong enough to confine particles (see Wheelers
"geometrodynamics"). There is some evidence for torsion transmitted through
space, but it is weak in both senses of the word.<BR><BR>Interesting thread on
the De Broglie- Bohm - Hiley stuff. and I could not agree more that people do
not pay enough attention to this. I was talking to Basil Hiley (who is the guy
doing the most to carry the de Broglie Bohm picture forwards at the moment) a
few months ago and regret not having more time to take up further contact with
him so far this year. That brings me to the question as to whether we should
broaden the scope of this discussion further - should we bring people such as
Basil Hiley and Roger Penrose in on it as well? Also there are other physicists
(I'm thinking of Phil Butler and Niels Gresnigt) who have worked on aspects of
this is in the past and should be included. Thoughts everyone?<BR><BR>Regards,
John.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">
<HR align=center SIZE=3 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> Adam K [<A
href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com"
target=_blank>afokay@gmail.com</A>]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 17, 2015
4:34 AM<BR><B>To:</B> chandra<BR><B>Cc:</B> John Williamson; Richard Gauthier;
A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; <A
href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target=_blank>wfhagen@gmail.com</A>; Hans De
Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan
Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj;
<A href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A>; 'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek; John
Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright;
Nick Green<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Photonic electron and spin</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi Chandra, </SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">I liked your tribute to Caulfield
a lot! Glad to see you mentioning Bohm, Huygens-Fresnel, Feynman path integrals,
and that the plane wave is unphysical. I have been thinking of all these things
a lot recently. In my opinion, people do not pay nearly enough attention to Bohm
or to the fact that plane waves don't exist. </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">A propos of de Broglie-Bohm, this
is fun: <A href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw"
target=_blank>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw</A></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">I didn't follow your point about
the Doppler shift. I will reread it more carefully. Isn't NIW just the
superposition principle? Why would superposition blind us to waves not
interacting? I must be missing something. (I am reading Fresnel's original
papers now and he understands superposition pretty well.)</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">I'm onboard with your fundamental
point about a single field. In fact I think it is the main consequence of
Einstein's work. After special relativity he said that the ether had been
deprived of its last mechanical property. After general relativity he said the
ether had 'mechanical' properties afterall and they were the properties of
spacetime. Is the CTF just spacetime? </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Also, the other attachment seems
to be corrupted for me. Resend? </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Best wishes,</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Adam</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">PS - incidentally the constancy of
c could also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living inside a cellular
automaton. I have seen in cellular automata theory the speed of propagation,
i.e. the update time through the grid (a speed which is fixed always), written
c. </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM,
chandra <<A href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>chandra@phys.uconn.edu</A>> wrote:</SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Hello Adam and
Friends: The complex field filling all space can sustain (allow) all possible
complex oscillations. I am of the opinion that β€œSpaceβ€ is the β€œmotherβ€
of everything manifest (and un-manifest to our experiments and theories as
yet). </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: wingdings; COLOR: black">J</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"> The β€œvacuumβ€ or the β€œspaceβ€
holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of β€œComplex Tension
Field (or CTF)β€. This CTF is capable of supporting propagating linear
oscillations (EM waves) and hold resonantly stable non-linear </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black">oscillations </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">(stable particles) as various kinds of
closed-looped oscillations of its potential gradients. This is why I like the
broad concept of β€œphotonics electronsβ€.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"> The field
CTF itself is stationary. It is the universal stationary reference system. The
absolute velocities of atoms and molecules measurable through real Doppler
frequency shifts in emission (source velocity) and perceived Doppler frequency
shifts due to detectors’ velocities. We do need a single complex field like
CTF if we ever want to succeed in building a unified field theory of
everything.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"> The
attached papers explains the supporting concepts; which are also elaborated in
my recent book:</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><A
href="http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves"
target=_blank>http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424116645&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics+photons+by+non-interactions+of+waves</A></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Sincerely,</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Chandra.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><A name=14b982444d9b1641_14b94009ef19d240__MailE></A><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> Adam
K [mailto:<A href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target=_blank>afokay@gmail.com</A>]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 16, 2015 11:48 AM<BR><B>To:</B> John
Williamson<BR><B>Cc:</B> Richard Gauthier; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary;
Ralph Penland; <A href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com"
target=_blank>wfhagen@gmail.com</A>; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David
Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Chandrasekhar
Roychoudhuri; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; <A
href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A>; 'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek; John
Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright;
Nick Green</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Photonic
electron and spin</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi John,</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Why do you say this?</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="COLOR: black">space does not support torsion, </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Just curious, it seems an infinitesimal measure of
torsion at a point would be indistinguishable from an infinitesimal measure of
circulation.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Adam</SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">On Feb 15, 2015 10:39 PM, "John
Williamson" <<A href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
target=_blank>John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</A>> wrote:</SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Hi
John,<BR><BR>Yes, something is spinning and it is, indeed, not cheese. The
mystery of quantum spin is not its value, or even its handedness - it is more in
that fact that, experimentally, it always takes just one of two values (spin
"up" or spin "down"). That is - if you measure it it appears to spin either
clockwise or counter-clockwise around your measurement axis with the FULL
angular momentum (plus or minus - never a fraction). As you rotate your
measurement axis the PROBABILITY changes as to which, of just two, values you
will measure. That is - it does not act like a macrosopic spin for which one
would see a smooth variation with a maximum (counter-clockwise-say) for the spin
axes aligned, going to zero with the spin axis at 90 degrees then to a maximum
clockwise at 180 degrees.<BR><BR>What one needs to do is model the internal flow
in such a way that when you project onto a spin axis (make a measurement) that
this always happens. Now a spin axis as not a simple vector-it is an axial
vector with respect to a momentum (or an integral over momenta for an extended
body). The simplest visualisation of spin is as r cross p. where the "r"
(radius) and the "p" (momentum) are perpendicular. This means that, properly, it
is a tri-vector. The questions then are what is r and what is p? For our (Martin
and my) model we have a characteristic r (lambda_c/4pi) and a characteristic p
(m_e/ c^3) whose product gives the right value for half-integral spin
(hbar/2). This is encouraging, but not the whole story. The problem is
that one may not relate the r to a massive point in space (like the (much
simpler-though complicated enough) case for the hydrogen atom where the electron
is compensated by the much larger proton mass. A free electron has only itself
to rotate about. This means the "r" must tumble rapidly about the centre of
momentum of the electron - at a frequency that is a multiple of the Compton
frequency. Why must this be so? Because a non-tumbling electron would have a
much larger energy. This is where the quantum bicycle comes in. What would such
a tumbling motion (in 4D space-time, of a set of six bi-vector fields) look
like? Further, what would such a thing do if one tried to measure it?
<BR><BR>This is why I say that the electron flow cannot be simply a vector flow
in space, such as you illustrate. Although it has some nice features it is not
fully consistent with (all of) experiment. <BR><BR>Lets go back to kid analogy.
Imagine a set of kids in space, ( roped to one another and wearing
space-suits of course) and standing on a Dirac-belt track. The kids can walk
forwards or backwards (or stand still) and can aeroplane their hands leftwards
or rightwards as they walk. What happens as they do so depends on the mass of
the track and the relative rotational inertia of their hands and their masses
with respect to the radius of the Dirac Belt. To get closer to reality, lets
assume these particular kids are robot kids with very massive hands (and very
light bodies) mounted on a spinning disc with axis constrained to lie along the
direction which they may walk. THis looks a bit more like the quantum bicycle.
Lets go first for a very light track. they start walking. They do not move, but
the track moves under their feet. Not very interesting. Lets give the
track a rotational inertial the same as that of the kids. THey start walking.
They walk one way and the track counter-rotates. An external observer sees a
rotating set of kids and counter-rotating track. Now they walk and spin their
arms at a harmonic frequency compatible with the frequency of the whole
rotation. To an outside observer in the initial plane of the track the kids at
the top appear to rotate hands clockwise, those at the bottom
counter-clockwise. What happens now depends on whether the track supports
torsion or not. If not, the kids twist around the track, if so the whole track
tumbles. The former is more realistic in that space does not support torsion,
but we have not yet included that the kids may have strong, directed electric
and magnetic field properties - which will seek to minimise the total energy of
the motion. It is this that gives rise to Mobius-like behaviour of certain
fields cancelling that is most consistent with the experimental body of evidence
for the properties of the electron. It is this internal turn and twist and
tumble that one tries to project if one measures the spin.<BR><BR>Now this is
good fun .. but it is not yet quite precise. In reality there is no track- just
the flow of momentum in some electromagnetic self-confined mode structure.
Further that momentum is not really in any particular space. It is not in any
given Lorentz frame. In particular the flow coming towards you is in a frame
which is at lightspeed with respect to you, the observer. At the same time
(actully not at the same time - whose time?) that moving away is in another
light speed frame. These two frames are as different to each other as can be.
Pretty much, since Lorentz transformations mix space and time, the space for one
is the time for the other and vice-versa. This flow is, therefore, best not
modelled in space or time at all. Better: the momentum density E cross B
is constant round the path (though E transforms to B and vice versa as one
switches frames). It is in this space (that of the momentum flow) that it makes
(more) sense to model things. It is this space to which Martin and I ascribed
the flow of the electron - as a photon in the 1997 paper, though others have
interpreted it otherwise (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough).
In solid state physics we are used to this as one works more often in momentum
space (k space) than in normal space - so I suppose workers in this field (like
me!) are more likely to think of it like this.<BR><BR>This may sound overly
complicated, but I would argue that it is not. Things are best modelled in that
space where they are simple. This is not a simple path is space, it is not a
simple spin, but it is a simple single-valued energy and hence frequency. It is
a (relatively) simple momentum flow with a great deal of symmetry. It is a
simple (radial) electric field distribution. These are our experimental points
of reference and we need to stick to them and test our models against
them!<BR><BR>Cheers, John.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">
<HR align=center SIZE=3 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> John Duffield [<A
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
target=_blank>johnduffield@btconnect.com</A>]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, February
15, 2015 4:23 PM<BR><B>To:</B> John Williamson; Vivian Robinson; Andrew
Meulenberg<BR><B>Cc:</B> Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek"; A. F.
Kracklauer; Adam K; <A href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A>; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De
Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; Jonathan Weaver; Mark, Martin van
der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing. Pavel OΕ΅mera,
CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Stephen Leary;
Timothy Drysdale; <A href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com"
target=_blank>wfhagen@gmail.com</A><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Photonic electron and
spin</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>John</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Sorry
I haven’t got back to your before now. I think quantum spin is nothing
mysterious, the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum
is of the same nature as classical angular momentum. We made an electron out of
light, something is going round and round in there, and it ain’t cheese. And
like the β€œquantum bicycleβ€ is doesn’t have to be spinning on one axis
only. Walk round in a circle with your arms outstretched like you’re a kid
pretending to be a plane, then bank your arms. Only the photon isn’t some kid,
it takes many paths, and it has to be moving through itself to displace itself,
so you need a crocodile of kids in a double loop to emulate the electron. And
even that isn’t good enough, because of something is rotating on two axes
it’s isn’t rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, it’s rotating like
this:</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'><IMG
id=_x0000_i1039 border=0 alt=ring_tor1_anim
src="cid:34948A61E045481C9C93BA476D83367D@HPlaptop" width=320 height=240>.
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Every
which way. But there’s nothing mysterious about it. The mystery is why people
say instrinsic spin is not a real rotation, when the hard scientific evidence
says it is. </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>As
regard field and force, IMHO there’s a big problem with Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz.
It’s trying to define the field in terms of force, and it doesn’t work
because you need two fields to have a force*. It’s missing the very essence of
what electrons and positrons are all about, it obscures the surely obvious fact
that they’re chiral dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space. Counter-rotating
vortices repel. IMHO QED obscures it further by suggesting that electrons and
positrons are throwing photons at one another. They aren’t doing this. They
<I>are</I> photons. 511keV photons with a toroidal topology. And see this:
<I>β€the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and
Bβ€ </I>There is no field E or B! Those are the forces that result from
field interactions. </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Darn,
I have to go. I’ll get back to you some more later. </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Regards</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>John</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>*
forgetting about the photon self-interaction for a moment</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> <A
title=John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
target=_blank>John Williamson</A> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>
Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:53 AM</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> <A
title=johnduffield@btconnect.com href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
target=_blank>John Duffield</A> ; <A title=viv@etpsemra.com.au
href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au" target=_blank>Vivian Robinson</A> ; <A
title=mules333@gmail.com href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target=_blank>Andrew
Meulenberg</A> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Cc:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> <A
title=richgauthier@gmail.com href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Richard Gauthier</A> ; <A title=matousek@fme.vutbr.cz
href="mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz" target=_blank>"'doc. Ing. Radomil
MatouΕ΅ek"</A> ; <A title=af.kracklauer@web.de
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target=_blank>A. F. Kracklauer</A> ; <A
title=afokay@gmail.com href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target=_blank>Adam K</A> ;
<A title=ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A> ; <A title=chandra@phys.uconn.edu
href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu" target=_blank>Chandrasekhar
Roychoudhuri</A> ; <A title=h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl
href="mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" target=_blank>Hans De Raedt</A> ; <A
title=etherdais@gmail.com href="mailto:etherdais@gmail.com" target=_blank>David
Saint John</A> ; <A title=fionavdburgt@gmail.com
href="mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com" target=_blank>Fiona van der Burgt</A> ; <A
title=Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk href="mailto:Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk"
target=_blank>Jonathan Weaver</A> ; <A title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target=_blank>Mark, Martin van
der</A> ; <A title=er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com
href="mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com" target=_blank>Mayank Drolia</A> ; <A
title=mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk"
target=_blank>Michael Wright</A> ; <A title=nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk
href="mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk" target=_blank>Nick Green</A> ; <A
title=osmera@fme.vutbr.cz href="mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz" target=_blank>"prof.
Ing. Pavel OΕ΅mera, CSc."</A> ; <A title=QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com
href="mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com" target=_blank>Rachel</A> ; <A
title=rpenland@gmail.com href="mailto:rpenland@gmail.com" target=_blank>Ralph
Penland</A> ; <A title=Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Robert Hadfield</A> ;
<A title=hudginswr@msn.com href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target=_blank>robert
hudgins</A> ; <A title=sleary@vavi.co.uk href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk"
target=_blank>Stephen Leary</A> ; <A title=Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Timothy Drysdale</A> ; <A
title=wfhagen@gmail.com href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com"
target=_blank>wfhagen@gmail.com</A> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> RE:
Photonic electron and spin</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Hi
Guys,<BR><BR>Yes I like Viv's model as well, even if it is a little bit flatter
(2D) than mine and Martin's (in joke between Viv and myself).<BR><BR>I think I'd
better get a bit pedantic as well as I think we need to not get too loose about
what is what is not and, at least agree as to what we are talking about and not
mix too many things up, or we will all start getting confused. A force is not a
field and a field is not a force. They are related, but have different
character. One can have a force-field, but this is different again (it is a
vector of vectors, whereas the electromagnetic field is a differential of a
vector of vectors),<BR><BR>o be more precise, in the usual relativistic
formulation, a field is a 4-vector differential (d = [d/dt, -dx,-d/dy,-d/dz]) of
a 4-vector potential (A = [At,Ax,Ay,Az]), where I have missed out the unit
vectors or covariant indices, but you know what I mean. That means Field=dA
(modulo some gauge which I will ignore for the mo). So the field is, strictly a
bi-vector quantity (or, more simply, a (traceless antisymmetric) tensor). That
is, it is more complicated than a vector. You cannot squeeze the complexity of a
field into the (relative) simplicity of a force, any more than you can squeeze
the complexity of a (general) vector into the relative simplicity of a scalar,
even if there are special examples where this is possible (conservative force
fields derivable from a scalar potential), and fields with a great degree of
symmetry (described by a gauge constraint with that symmetry). I know there is a
lot of elementary text-book level stuff where this is assumed, but that is
written by people who do not really understand what the gauge is and what it is
for. <BR><BR>You can see the difference simply because the field has six
components, not four. These are, in some particular frame Ex Ey Ez and Bx By Bz.
Although in one frame something may be electric only, in every other inertial
frame it will also have magnetic components. Fields in general have six
components, and this is certainly true for the electron and more complex
particles of the sort we wish to describe. <BR><BR>Now a force IS a vector. The
question is how is this related to field? Well, if we restrict ourselves to
electromagnetic forces then these are products of such things as 4-currents and
fields (See Waite 1995 in the paper I just sent you and all the references
therein to Einstein's work on FJ). Such products have vector components. So ,
for example the simple case of the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a
product of fields E and B and 4- current [q, Jx,Jy,Jz]. That is the Lorentz
force is an element of the more general expression FJ or of (setting dF=J in the
full set of Maxwell equations) Force = FdF (six component) field tensor times
four-derivative of field tensor). In summary force is a (single index) vector
quantity, where field is a (two index) tensor or bi-vector quantity.<BR><BR>Hope
this helps,<BR><BR>John.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">
<HR align=center SIZE=3 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> John Duffield [<A
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
target=_blank>johnduffield@btconnect.com</A>]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday,
February 11, 2015 9:01 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Vivian Robinson; Andrew
Meulenberg<BR><B>Cc:</B> Richard Gauthier; "'doc. Ing. Radomil MatouΕ΅ek"; A. F.
Kracklauer; Adam K; <A href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A>; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri; Hans De
Raedt; David Saint John; Fiona van der Burgt; John Williamson; Jonathan Weaver;
Mark, Martin van der; Mayank Drolia; Michael Wright; Nick Green; "prof. Ing.
Pavel OΕ΅mera, CSc."; Rachel; Ralph Penland; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins;
Stephen Leary; Timothy Drysdale; <A href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com"
target=_blank>wfhagen@gmail.com</A><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Photonic electron and
spin</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Andrew:</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Viv’s description
sounds pretty good to me. I would urge you to look again at the ball of yarn and
the wormhole in time. Time is just a cumulative measure of local motion.
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Viv/Andrew:</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>I’d like to stress
that the photon is an <EM><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>electromagnetic</SPAN></EM> field
variation, and the electron has an <EM><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>electromagnetic</SPAN></EM> field.
The thing we call an electric field isn’t really a field, it’s the linear
force that results from electromagnetic field interactions. Sorry to be a pedant
about this, but I really do think it’s important. </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>All: </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>I think physics is in
a pretty pass when physicists can’t say what a photon is. Or an electron. And
IMHO there’s not much point talking about selectrons if you don’t know what
an electron is. Or much else for that matter. </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Regards</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>John</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> <A
title=viv@etpsemra.com.au href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au" target=_blank>Vivian
Robinson</A> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>
Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:03 AM</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> <A
title=mules333@gmail.com href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target=_blank>Andrew
Meulenberg</A> </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Cc:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> <A
title=richgauthier@gmail.com href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Richard Gauthier</A> ; <A title=matousek@fme.vutbr.cz
href="mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz" target=_blank>"'doc. Ing. Radomil
MatouΕ΅ek"</A> ; <A title=af.kracklauer@web.de
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target=_blank>A. F. Kracklauer</A> ; <A
title=afokay@gmail.com href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target=_blank>Adam K</A> ;
<A title=ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
target=_blank>ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</A> ; <A title=chandra@phys.uconn.edu
href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu" target=_blank>Chandrasekhar
Roychoudhuri</A> ; <A title=h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl
href="mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" target=_blank>Hans De Raedt</A> ; <A
title=etherdais@gmail.com href="mailto:etherdais@gmail.com" target=_blank>David
Saint John</A> ; <A title=fionavdburgt@gmail.com
href="mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com" target=_blank>Fiona van der Burgt</A> ; <A
title=johnduffield@btconnect.com href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
target=_blank>John Duffield</A> ; <A title=John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>John Williamson</A> ;
<A title=jonathan.weaver@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:jonathan.weaver@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Jonathan Weaver</A> ;
<A title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target=_blank>Mark, Martin van
der</A> ; <A title=er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com
href="mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com" target=_blank>Mayank Drolia</A> ; <A
title=mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk"
target=_blank>Michael Wright</A> ; <A title=nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk
href="mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk" target=_blank>Nick Green</A> ; <A
title=osmera@fme.vutbr.cz href="mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz" target=_blank>"prof.
Ing. Pavel OΕ΅mera, CSc."</A> ; <A title=QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com
href="mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com" target=_blank>Rachel</A> ; <A
title=rpenland@gmail.com href="mailto:rpenland@gmail.com" target=_blank>Ralph
Penland</A> ; <A title=Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Robert Hadfield</A> ;
<A title=hudginswr@msn.com href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target=_blank>robert
hudgins</A> ; <A title=sleary@vavi.co.uk href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk"
target=_blank>Stephen Leary</A> ; <A title=tim.drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:tim.drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk" target=_blank>Timothy Drysdale</A> ; <A
title=wfhagen@gmail.com href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com"
target=_blank>wfhagen@gmail.com</A> </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: whitesmoke"><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> Re:
Photonic electron and spin</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Dear Andrew and all,
</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>I refer to your
question below concerning the spin of an electron under this electromagnetic
model. I have a slightly different way of looking at problems. I like to think
it is from a practical physics viewpoint. (I have had great successes in my
career, when the world's "experts" told me my ideas would never work.) My
philosophy is to work out the physics involved and then apply the necessary
mathematics to check the magnitude of the physical effect. If it matches
experiment, that is a good start. Like most in this group I contend that
everything is electromagnetic in nature. What some call a toroidal
electromagnetic field I call a rotating photon. We know something about photons,
but not everything. Features like electric and magnetic fields, polarisation,
frequency, wavelength, energy and speed appear to be established and can be
treated mathematically. The nature of the electric and magnetic fields and
number of cycles in a single photon are not so well established. Most agree that
photons have a limited length that makes them behave like a particle. This
stresses the importance of conferences like SPIE that can help sort these things
out. </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>With that as
background I address your concern about the spin of an electron. The following
reference should take you directly to a paper I wrote a few years ago on A
Proposal for the Structure and Properties of the Electron, to Libertas Academica
Press, a journal called Particle Physics Insights. The electron's structure is
that of a photon that makes two revolutions in its wavelength. The maths are the
same irrespective of whether the photon is one wavelength long or n wavelengths
long, where n is a finite number. The rotating photon gives the electron its
spin of half hbar and defines why E = mc**2. (I made an error in my
determination of the Bohr magneton as Richard rightly pointed out). The Bohr
magneton is the electron's charge multiplied by the radius of the rotating
photon. Its radius is half the Compton wavelength. This allows the electric and
magnetic fields to interlock. It also derives some properties of the electron,
like special relativity corrections, de Broglie wavelength, positron is mirror
image of electron.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'><A
href="http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU"
target=_blank>http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU</A></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Figure 12 gives
a brief discussion on some properties of the electron's spin. As a rotating
photon, an electron is always spinning. It spin depends upon the direction from
which it is observed. Its two states of spin are "other side of the page images
of the same particle". Spin is quantised because it can only spin one way or the
other, with respect to the observer. It is not always possible to tell which way
it is spinning until its spin is measured. </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>I hope this helps your
understanding.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Cheers,</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Viv
Robinson</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>On 10/02/2015, at 2:32
PM, Andrew Meulenberg <<A href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com"
target=_blank>mules333@gmail.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Dear
Richard,</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>You answered my
request for a reference to your statement </SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>"A
non-moving electron’s spin is undefined until it’s measured with respect to
something, and even then I think it has to be moving" with: </SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 30pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>
"I think that the standard Copenhagen QM says that any property like spin
doesn't exist (or cannot be known) until it's measured. And then the quantity
measured (like spin) aligns with its z-component in the direction of some
measurement axis." </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>I suspected that the
reference would be to a non-physical explanation that reveals a lack of
understanding that all of us are trying to correct. I anyone has an actual
reference/citation for such a statement, I would appreciate it.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>I am starting a new
thread because I hope that this will be a topic of discussion(s) in San Diego. I
hope that someone of the group will do the mathematics and present it in their
paper since I believe it to be fundamental to the nature of the electron,
explains the basis for the deBroglie wavelength, and leads to a better
understanding of nuclear particles and physics.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>I will need to
describe my picture of the photonic electron to make the point.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>The moebius electron
is the proper starting point. However, the photon is not a single-cycle
creature. It <U>has</U> been made that way in special cases with an immense
amount of work. Nevertheless. it normally may be 100 to 1e7 (or more) cycles
long. Thus, the electron formed from a photon is not just the simple
moebius. It is the continuous 'twisted' wrapping of the photon about itself
(like a ball of yarn, but with the photon center remaining on a 'surface' with
the Compton radius). This is possible because (in one view) light does not
interfere with light and can therefore superpose itself and settle to the lowest
energy level, which is one with a uniform isotropic <B>E</B>-field out-directed
to create the Coulomb potential. The inward -directed field reaches a critical
energy density and forms a worm-hole in time that erupts back into space as the
positron. One of my papers in San Diego ("The photon to electron/positron-pair
transition ") will describe the physical mechanism for this 'rectification'
process.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>This mechanism creates
the electron-positron pair, with mass and charges, from a photon that has
neither. It fits the conservation of energy, momentum (linear, angular, and
spin), charge, etc.; but, it means that there may be no electric monopoles.
(Actually, I think that the wormhole eventually breaks down or 'pinches
off' and leaves the charges independent.)</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>When stationary, the
electron is totally isotropic; but, it has angular momentum in <U>all</U>
directions. Since the photon is traveling in all directions, at the speed of
light, any motion of the electron will put a torque on the photon via forces
along the portions that are exceeding light speed. These forces 'compress' the
spherical ball in the direction of motion (the Lorentz contraction. The induced
shape change gives the electron its characteristic 'spin' along a specific axis.
However, the relativistic torque causes the spin axis to precess about a
preferred axis (the velocity vector, if in free space). The deBroglie wavelength
is the distance traveled at velocity v during a single precession cycle.
This then is the basis for most of the electron/positron properties and
quantization of the atomic-electron orbits.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Once these things are
understood, rather than just expressed mathematically, it becomes possible to
properly explore the nature of matter, at the nuclear and sub-nuclear levels,
and see that it is all electromagnetic (with some relativistic components, e.g.
the neutrino) and begins with the photon.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Andrew</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>
<HR>
<FONT color=gray size=1 face=Arial>The information contained in this message may
be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is
intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of
this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.<BR></FONT>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
List at johnduffield@btconnect.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to
unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>