<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style>
<!--
-->
</style><style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI"}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
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:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif}
span.MsoPlaceholderText
{color:gray}
span.BalloonTextChar
{font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
span.balloontextchar0
{font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif}
span.balloontextchar00
{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
{color:black}
span.EmailStyle29
{color:black}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
-->
</style><style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" dir="ltr" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US" link="blue">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Hello John and everyone,<br>
<br>
I am not saying that time is frozen for a photon, or that one sees "everything at once". On the contrary one sees nothing at all EXCEPT for those things on the (your- as a photon) light cone. That is one sees all valid "Feynmann paths" - paths of zero 4-D length
(interval). All you see is the point. That is the point!<br>
<br>
I know I am not explaining myself very well. This is normal. It's hard. Language is (very) limited. My talent even more so. Time constrains even that. There is so much that needs to be said... even so ... it is fun to try ...<br>
<br>
What I am saying is that there exists a frame where both the emission and the absorption events take place at (virtually) the same point in space-time. The point IS that the event is characterised by it being expressible at a point in space-time. A single,
unique point available only to that single photon and to its very own emission and absorption. This is very different (in fact precisely the opposite!) of it being characterised by a point in time alone. The times of emission and absorption in frame observed
by massive creatures is very different, and (on average for us (excluding our interaction with the local star which comes in at about 8 minutes and tends to blind us to the obvious) differs by about 7.5 billion years. Longer than the age of our solar system.
Do the maths. Briefly- this is because the probability of an interaction varies inversely with the square of the distance but, for a constant density universe, the number of emitters in any given radial extension goes as the square. Emitters cross section
gets smaller conversely with their average number. Hence, our average interactions (excepting the sun and the local group of galaxies) are uniformly distributed by radius from us and for a 15 billion year old universe occurred about 7.5 billion years ago.
Scary stuff! The only way to "freeze" this is to see the whole 4-D universe with the huge (factorially large number of interactions over 10^80 existing particles) from beginning to end as a single frozen process. Nearly as bad a thought as that proposed by
the many-worlds proponents. Not to mention the little Wittgenstienian problem that the observing system (me) would be a part of the frozen process - and hence cannot say anything useful about it about its own parameters!<br>
<br>
Coming back to Lorentz transformation and special relativity- one mans space is another mans time and vice versa. As v tends to c sqrt 1/(v^2-c^2) tends to infinity. Vector inverses become undefined. The "Lorentz contraction" means that any "distance" shrinks
to no distance. One needs to take on board that every (on shell) photon "event" has this property. In that (unique) frame all the path is on the same point in the path. That is the point. If you look at a distant star, for the photon, your eye is on the star
and the star is in your eye. For that photon, that path length is (just about) zero. The allowed line (s) is strongly constrained by the condition ct^2 = r^2. Everywhere (and everywhen) (along this single, unique to that photon set of lines) is then "local".
This is why it does not matter how long the photon wave train length is. They are all anyway at the same point for the photon. It is frequency alone (to a first approximation) that characterises the energy- not any spatial distribution. As is observed in experiment.
Ok .. if one goes off shell a little (photon has non zero rest-mass) then this condition relaxes a little, but only an eentsy bit. In optics terminology this occurs more and more as one goes into the "near field". If one goes to high energy physics these correspond
eventually to the "virtual photon exchange" of QED - where the rest mass (square root of 4-momentum transfer squared) of the exchanged photon is just as likely to be negative (attraction) as positive (repulsion). Long-distance photons (of the visible variety,
for example) are always very nearly rest-massless. It is these sorts of events that take place at a point in space-time.<br>
<br>
Also light does not appear to go through asteroids (unless they are perfectly spherical!).<br>
<br>
Gotta go .. Heavy day today- classes at 9 10, 12, 1 and 2-5. I now have more student contact hours on a Friday than I used to have in a whole week!<br>
<br>
Cheers, John.<br>
<br>
P.S. you are right that much of the quantum mysticism is just bog-standard properties of waves!<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF373646"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield@btconnect.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:01 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt; font-family:'Calibri'; color:#000000">
<div>John:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Whilst I “root for relativity”, I don’t think time is frozen for a photon, or that it sees everything at once. If you were travelling at the speed of light (or so close to it that we couldn’t tell the difference) you wouldn’t see everything at once. Instead
you wouldn’t see anything at all. I could put an asteroid in your path, and you wouldn’t know anything about it: BLAM!
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In fact, taking a lead from Martin’s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for “quantum mysticism” is actually rather thin. See for example
<a title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment" target="_blank">
the quantum eraser experiment</a>. See this near the bottom: <em>“A double slit with rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave”.
</em>The next sentence says entangled photons are not compatible with classical mechanics, but that cuts no ice. They used that excuse to say electron spin surpasseth all human understanding.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div>John D</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 style=""><b>From:</b> <a title="chipakins@gmail.com" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">
Chip Akins</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">
'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="color:black">John Williamson</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I don’t know how to thank you for the insight you have provided regarding the photon.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Finally now, I think I get it. At the speed c for the photon, time is frozen. So from the photon’s perspective, the photon is exposed to all possible paths simultaneously.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">It will take me some time to envision all the implications of this, and to really understand it.</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:0in; padding-top:3pt; padding-left:0in; border-left:medium none; padding-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:53 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [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">Hello Chip and everyone,<br>
<br>
I think there is a general misconception at the heart of thinking about the photon as doing something ... then something else .... then something else. Whose then?<br>
<br>
A single photon event emission-transmission and absorption can (and in my view, crucially, should) be seen as occuring at the SAME point in space time, for the photon. Speaking electronically, the photon "sees" the whole system all in the same place and at
the same time.This is what being a null vector implies. It is also what the number-phase uncertainty implies. In this view the photon sees the emitter, any crap we try to fool it (or ourselves) with by half-obscuring slits or sitting loads of polarisers in
its paths. It sees these paths, all other (Feynmann) paths, all at once and all at the same point. Given this environment either it jumps (coherent in phase with all proper paths), or absolutely does not jump (coherent in antiphase). One-photon-at-a-time.
Ok it may stimulate another photon to follow it in phase, but this absolutely must be at another point in space time if one wishes to preserve linearity of field and of energy (both of which are as-observed in experiment.<br>
<br>
Gotta go ... lab ...</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="divRpF270044">
<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 Chip Akins [chipakins@gmail.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:01 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi John and Chandra</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">In trying to sort out the angular momentum of the photon I have understood that experimentally, a single photon, when passed through a plane polarizer, still imparts angular momentum, and that angular momentum
can take on either +or – directions, but is always the same h bar value. However, the “superposition” of spin states not only seems unphysical but also quite unreal. Why would the superposition allow the photon to pass through the polarizer? Why would the
photon be the result of superposition at the polarizer, and not the result of superposition at the target? There seem to be so many arguments against the concept of superposition that it may be reasonable to look for other, more viable solutions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">This circumstance, and several others, has led me to contrive a photon model which possesses and “carries” (imparts) angular momentum but can be plane polarized. So far I have not seen or understood an argument
which disallows this solution. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">John W. I am interested and eager to understand why you feel that the photon must physically spin in order to impart angular momentum?? How do you feel about the superposition of spin states in the photon? Do you
feel there is another explanation which could dispose of superposition?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">One reason that I am asking, is that the idea of superposition, is at the crux of the issue, determining whether Copenhagen-like or causal avenues are actually physically correct.</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>
<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:0in; padding-top:3pt; padding-left:0in; border-left:medium none; padding-right:0in">
<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>John Williamson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:27 AM<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><span style="color:black"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></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><span style="color:black"></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 “carry” 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 “Interference of Waves”, 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 “circular” or “elliptically” 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 “angular momentum” 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 “incoherent”! Light is never “incoherent”;
the detector’s response characteristics determine the beams’ correlation property, or the “viability of the fringes”. Mistaken classical physics notion (waves interfere) has assigned detectors’ physical properties as “Optical Coherence” 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 “polarization” chapter in my book, “Causal Physics:….”
<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 “photonic electron”. 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 “c-velocity”
does not make them “photons”. They are just another kind of excited states of the CTF. Unfortunately, the enormous non-linear excitation makes the “push-away” into a resonantly stable self-loop oscillation, giving rise to the particle-like universe. This is
the root of inertia. There are no physical “mass”. We know that from m=(E/c-squared). The self-looped oscillation also explains why the “particle” world is so elusive. Assigning “plane wave” 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 “particles”. The particles themselves provide such gradients by virtue of their various self-looped oscillations. So the “particles” “fall” or “get repulsed” by these
potential gradients. We now describe them as the famous “four forces” 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:0in; padding-top:3pt; padding-left:0in; border-left:medium none; padding-right:0in">
<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" target="_blank">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 “general”.</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" src="cid:E1C2A129D62740998686696478EF5D5F@HPlaptop" height="329" border="0" width="436"></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:0in; padding-top:3pt; padding-left:0in; border-left:medium none; padding-right:0in">
<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 “general” as I am doing now and always reply to the same “general”, then all these email-discussions will be automatically archived in the “natureoflightandparticles.org”.
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 “engineering thinking” 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 “Interaction 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_i1028" src="cid:60F18EE44E224F6390B8877D609BC5AB@HPlaptop" height="20" border="0" width="77"></span><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">
. This </span><span style="color:black"><img id="_x0000_i1029" src="cid:84F501F1806E460FABBA69DAFC47B68E@HPlaptop" height="20" border="0" width="10"></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_i1030" src="cid:F6FD10F1F5444A4091C8F413B3474DA0@HPlaptop" height="20" border="0" width="73"></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 “stimulation” when we take out the “detector constant” χ out of the summation, implying fields are directly sum-able
</span><span style="color:black"><img id="_x0000_i1031" src="cid:C3E14C7F5493421A98023450D861ED22@HPlaptop" height="20" border="0" width="73"></span><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">. But, χ CAN BE a constant only for a narrow band of frequency! This
is the engineering reality! This is why I am promoting “engineering thinking” for the physicists. The step-two in the interaction process is “energy transfer” as the square modulus of the conjoint stimulation</span><span style="color:black"><img id="_x0000_i1032" src="cid:821AEF436C1D4914B26213F8266764AC@HPlaptop" height="20" border="0" width="47"></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 “nirvana” 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 “local” 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 “photonic electron” 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 “Pilot Waves”. 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_i1033" src="cid:60F18EE44E224F6390B8877D609BC5AB@HPlaptop" height="20" border="0" width="77"></span><span style="font-size:10pt; color:black">
due to (now) multiple particles </span><span style="color:black"><img id="_x0000_i1034" src="cid:E74857E4297F4E968E5E8CED729689AC@HPlaptop" height="23" border="0" width="18"></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:0in; padding-top:3pt; padding-left:0in; border-left:medium none; padding-right:0in">
<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 Matoušek; 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_i1035" alt="GravitationalField" src="cid:009E9F0A183A4ABF8E9066D70D3A06A0@HPlaptop" height="131" border="0" width="242"></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_i1036" alt="afield1form" src="cid:B209EEBC0E68410FA7780B6A59A18C13@HPlaptop" height="157" border="0" width="637">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">“the 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 time”</span></em>. The spatial derivative of the above curve is the sinusoidal “electric” waveform, the time-derivative is the sinusoidal “magnetic” 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">
= √(μ</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">/ε</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 = √(G/ρ). In electrodynamics
we have a reciprocal on permittivity because it’s a “how pliable” measure as opposed to a “how stiff” measure. But the expression we use is essentially the same: c = √(1/ε</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">μ</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 Matoušek</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_i1037" alt="EinsteinSpeedofLight" src="cid:43851FA766314DAE80731BD1A3D03C49@HPlaptop" height="335" border="0" width="484"></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 Matoušek</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 Matoušek; 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 “Space” is the “mother” 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 “vacuum” or the “space” holds 100% of the energy of the universe as some form of “Complex
Tension Field (or CTF)”. 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 “photonics
electrons”.</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 Matoušek; 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 Matoušek"; 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 Ošmera, 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 “quantum bicycle” 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_i1040" alt="ring_tor1_anim" src="cid:D51CF69297964F1087C03F1D190F7CEE@HPlaptop" height="240" border="0" width="320">.
</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>”the Lorentz force is Force = qE + J cross B is a product of fields E and B”
</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 Matoušek"</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 Ošmera, 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 Matoušek"; 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 Ošmera, 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 Matoušek"</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 Ošmera, 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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<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>
</body>
</html>