<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Dear Chip,<br><br></div>A couple of the papers that John D provided, use the same argument that Feynman used. The emission time gives an indication of the photon length. I don't think it is a good argument. However, I believe that the order of magnitude may not be too bad as an upper limit. The idea that an undisturbed electron can radiate a photon 1E7 cycles (> 1 meter) long makes sense. The argument, which allows some of the decays to occur in a very-much shorter time than the 1/2 life, would allow the early decays to have shorter-length photons than the later ones. I believe that this model would also provide much broader linewidths than observed.<br><br></div>The linewidths, and the Fourier transforms necessary to provide them, would give the variation in number of cycles needed to provide the spread in energy (momentum) observed. Someone more familiar with this type problem could make a better guess than I. It is one of the few times that I think Feynman might have been wrong (not just taking a short cut). However, the concept has stuck in my mind, so it might have been a good teaching ploy.<br><br></div>Andrew<br><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 9:46 PM, John Duffield <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr" link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Calibri";color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div>Chip:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Actually, I don’t know. Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned it. But maybe it’s
to do with emission time and wavepackets. See stuff like <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xipXoljGTxUC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=%22how+long+is+a+photon%22&source=bl&ots=3TM4naozVY&sig=uftqZ9pK9JUhiYVD6exZk2T65pc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Fa7oVPaLGMnxUJqohPgF&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22how%20long%20is%20a%20photon%22&f=false" target="_blank">this</a>
and this: <a title="http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/photon/photon.html" href="http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/photon/photon.html" target="_blank">http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/photon/photon.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><i>“In the RF region, a photon would be many kilometres in length. In the
IR region, a photon would be several meters in length, and in the visible region
it would be many cm to meters in length. It is only in the hard x-ray region
that the "photon" would approach the dimensions of an orbital...” </i></div>
<div> </div>
<div>There’s also stuff like this <a title="http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3364" href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3364" target="_blank">http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3364</a> , but
on the other hands there’s also <a title="http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596" href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596" target="_blank">http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596</a>. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I tend to think of a photon as a one-wavelength electromagnetic pulse
myself, the spatial derivative of which is the sinusoidal “electric field”
variation, the time derivative being the sinusoidal “magnetic field”
variation. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div>John</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Calibri";color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="font-size:small;text-decoration:none;font-family:"Calibri";font-weight:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;display:inline">
<div style="font:10pt tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(245,245,245)">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="chipakins@gmail.com" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">Chip Akins</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 21, 2015 3:39 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:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;display:inline">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi John
Duffield<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Can you enlighten me about how you
calculate the “length” of a photon?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Intuitively, 3 meters seems pretty
long to me.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Of course the wavelength of
visible light is well known and resides in the range from 390nm to 780nm.
What, in your view, causes a photon of visible light to be about 5128205128
wavelengths in length? How is this calculated?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span> </p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 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:<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank">general-bounces+chipakins</a>=<a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Duffield<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 21, 2015
9:19 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<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u><u></u> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">John/Chip/All:
<u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I just don’t buy this
Wheeler/Feynman emitter/absorber stuff. By and large, if I see something with
Wheeler’s name on it, I am skeptical. And as for special relativity, see <a href="http://www.classicalmatter.org/ClassicalTheory/OtherRelativity.pdf" target="_blank">The
Other Meaning of Special Relativity</a> by Robert Close. The photon has a
wavelength, it isn’t length-contracted to a zero wavelength. It moves at c, it
isn’t instant. And IMHO it doesn’t “see” anything at all. It doesn’t see a light
year as no space at all. It doesn’t see a year as no time at all. IMHO a
radiating body radiates, it doesn’t care about some absorber light years away.
There’s no spooky connection between emitters and absorbers. However the photon
from a flourescent light is about three metres long, and you know that a photon
can interact with itself. IMHO it can interact with itself in the
equipment. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Regards<u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">John D
<u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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="chipakins@gmail.com" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">Chip Akins</a>
<u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
Saturday, February 21, 2015 1:49 PM<u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'</a> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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:
[General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the
problem<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi All<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Sorting through implications at
the macro level…<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">While this “single point in
spacetime” approach appears to answer the questions raised by experiment, it is
still a bit mind warping to try to understand the larger
implications.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Let’s start with John W’s thought
about “now” for a photon, and let’s then conjecture that the emitters and
absorbers are also particles made of photons.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">In this scenario, virtually all of
the photons (and therefore particles) in the universe are feeling practically
all of our future and our past. Does this imply then, that using that
approach, all photon exchange events are already determined? Otherwise, how can
it be that a photon from a distant star, millions of years in the past (in our
frame), can know that you will be standing in a specific location, and that a
particle in your eye will make a good absorber?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">If, however, each photon’s “now”,
is defined to begin at the macroscopic time point “now”, for a particle at rest,
and stretch into its own future only, and not into its past, it seems we still
have the issues of predetermination of events.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Our normal beliefs and experiences
indicate to us that all events are not predetermined. It seems to us that we
have choices.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">So where is the illusion? Is
it in our perception of freedom of choice, or in our theory, or simply my
misinterpretation of the implications?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 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> Saturday, February 21, 2015
12:19 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<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Thank
you Martin and Stephen,<br><br>Yes that was precisely the initial reference I
had in mind. The paper initiated a lot of discussion at the time, but that has
faded away with time into the curiosity locker. People get used to not
understanding all sorts of stuff.<br><br>To come back to Chip's question ... it
is not so much that the photon "looks into the future" but more that one must
really, in any theoretical framework, take on board the full implications of the
theory, weigh them properly and compare them with ALL of experiment. In the 21st
century this process is a little uncomfortable, as one finds all theories
wanting in some respects. This is fine - all it means is that we are not
there yet in understanding everything. All the theories describe some aspects of
experiment well, but have difficulty with others. This is a good thing, as it
means we can have some fun making new ones up.<br><br>Lets get back to the
narrow implications of Einstien's special relativity in this context. let us
also consider three "localities"; that of the emitter, that of the absorber and
that of the exchanged photon. Now, for the un-initiated amongst us, the word
"local" here has a special meaning. It is the local in quantum non-locality. It
is also "local" as opposed to "global". In this sense a local gauge invariance
is "stronger" than a "global" gauge invariance - for those of us familiar with
gauge theories. To confuse things further, people take these things too
seriously sometimes in quantum mysticism arguments and argue about what local
really does or does not mean. Don't worry about this: often they are just using
big words or arguments they do not really fully understand (like me now!). This
comes also to Andrew's excellent point about the conceptual nature of forwards
and backwards in time within a quantum state, and Feynman's argument that a
positron may be viewed as a time-reversed electron. All nice concepts that
reflect some aspect of reality (whatever that is). Good-ho ... back to a single
photon exchange event.<br><br>Consider firstly the absorber (observer) frame
(and we will come back to this at the end). The absorber sees a photon coming in
from the past. This could be from the far past if one is observing a galaxy far
away and long ago (think Hubble deep-field). For the absorber the emitter is
separated by scarcely imaginable distances in time and in space. For the
absorber, the emitter is not at the same place, or the same time, or the same
velocity (usually the photon is red-shifted over galactic distances). No
matter.<br><br>Now consider the emitter. It sends off a photon into its future.
We all do this ourselves all the time, radiating away at 300K. One could
consider this to be just throwing out a photon boat (and most folk seem to think
this- at least implicitly). Off it goes into infinity to perhaps, or perhaps not
hit something somewhere and somewhen in the future. This is a perfectly valid
picture - but it begs the question of what the probabilty is that it will hit
something. If the probability of eventual absorption by matter elsewhere is
unity (which one kind of needs to conserve energy) then the converse should also
be true - that wherever one looks one should observe stuff. This is not the
case. If it were so we would be a bit hot as one would observe star-stuff in
every direction. Alternatively, it could, be destined for some particular
absorber - in the sense of the Wheeler-Feynman argument. Now this latter
argument seems to me to better fit the weight of current experiment from the
quantum entanglement community (or just from the simple double-slit experiment
with single photons). The photon is not emitted if there is a phase
cancellation. No matter how long one waits with ones detector in the dark spot
of the interference experiment no photon will arrive. Move a bit to the left or
right and they will. Move to the maximum and you will collect lots. To go into
the case discussed by Chandra of dipole emitters and absorbers (the usual
kind) then if one sits with a dipole detector with the dipole aligned "up" one
will see only vertically polarised photons, "left" and one will get only
horizontal. If the (clever) emitter emits right circularly polarised photons (or
we polarise them) either will see, on average, just half of the incoming
photons. Experiment seems clear at least on the short(ish) scale of current
experiment: photons are not emitted of there is nowhere for them to
go.<br><br>Ok, this may not be what experiment is telling us - and it may be a
lack of imagination on my part which misses a better explanation. I'm not
particularly attached to any one standpoint anyway - I just want to know how it
works and what is going on. I LIKE playing with different scenarios, and
investigating their consequences. Please feel free to contradict or propose
counter-experiments or express another view. I will not be offended in any way
if you tell me I am an idiot and this is completely mad! I already know
that.<br><br>What I am going to do now is propose that, however far-fetched this
might seem, that there is indeed an interaction with the absorber. That is - in
order for a photon to be emitted into the future for the emitter, there must be
a corresponding absorber taking that same photon arising from its
past. These are the two "localities" discussed above. One sees only past,
the other emits only to the future.<br><br>Now move to the third locality - that
of the exchange photon itself. Let us consider what is, and what is not, local
for this object. Now, although the distance is very large for emitter and
absorber -billions of light years, and the time measured by each is huge, though
(for Andrew!) of opposite sign for both) the interval (sqrt(ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2)
seen by a rest-massless photon is precisely zero, as these two big numbers
cancel exactly. One could also do a thought experiment, consider travelling as
an observer faster and faster with the photon. At the limit of light speed the
distance in your frame between emission and absorption shrinks (according to
special relativity) to zero. Of course, actually performing such an experiment
is, as John D observed, likely to prove fatal to the poor observer as (s)he
splats against whatever massive body is observing our hero the photon - but no
matter. Darwinian selection.<br><br>Conclusion: if we take special relativity
seriously, the photon "locality" includes both the emission and absorption event
at the same (relativistic) point in space time. <br><br>In any event, for me the
"direction" of time is self evident. It is the direction of energy exchange.
Same maths, same thing. It is always from emitter to absorber. By definition.
Emitter emits to future. Observer observes only past. As is consistent with
experiment. No need for any daft entropy arguments. Time can go forwards or
backwards symettrically. We can not.<br><br>The question is then: is such a
standpoint consistent with the whole body of experimental evidence or not.
Discuss.<br><br>Cheers, John.<u></u><u></u></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>
<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=<a href="mailto:glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Mark, Martin van der
[<a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>]<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 20, 2015 6:01
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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Chip,
Stephen, </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">the
right reference would be: </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman,
``Interaction with the absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation", Rev. Mod. Phys.
{\bf 17}, 157 (1945).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">cheers,
Martin</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(45,44,44)" lang="EN"> </span></b><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red" lang="EN">Incidentally,</span></b><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red" lang="EN">Can
anybody send me: </span><span style="color:black"><a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pe/pe;jsessionid=7peiff7dakbeq.alexandra" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;text-decoration:none;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red" lang="EN">Physics
Essays</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red" lang="EN">, Volume
27, Number 1, March 2014, pp. <span>146-164(19)?</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy" lang="DE">Dr. Martin
B. van der Mark</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Principal
Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Philips
Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">High Tech
Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Prof.
Holstlaan 4</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">5656
AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Tel: +31
40 2747548</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"> General
[</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Stephen Leary<br><b>Sent:</b> vrijdag 20 februari 2015
18:23<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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Chip, <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I think you may have hit the nail
on the head right there. There is some evidence to suggest that that is
precisely what happens. I forget the reference so take with the appropriate
pinch of salt but i do remember reading/discussing (possibly with John Weaver)
that entangled photons can be setup in an experiment such that the emitter and
will only emit if both photons have somewhere to be
absorbed.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hopefully someone will correct my
memory or find the appropriate references. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br>Cheers<u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Stephen<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:42 PM,
Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">chipakins@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi John
Williamson<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">In trying to understand the
implications of the single point in spacetime scenario as felt by the photon,
there seem to be some difficult issues involved.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Are you implying that the photon
(from the perspective of the rest of the universe) can look into the future and
feel all of the future events in its path before taking that path? If it
can see all of its path at one point in spacetime, this seems to be well beyond
its light-cone as perceived by the rest of the universe???<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 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 [mailto:</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">general-bounces+chipakins</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">=</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:57
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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">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!</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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>
<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=</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">] on
behalf of John Duffield [</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">]<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</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">John:</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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! </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">In fact, taking a lead
from Martin’s email, IMHO the experimental evidence for “quantum mysticism” is
actually rather thin. See for example </span><span style="color:black"><a title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">the quantum eraser
experiment</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">. See this near the
bottom: <i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">“A double slit with
rotating polarizers can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a
classical wave”. </span></i>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.
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Regards</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">John D</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="chipakins@gmail.com" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Chip
Akins</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:25 PM</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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:
[General] Photonic electron and spin: the heart of the problem</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">John
Williamson<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 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 [</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">] <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><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></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><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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>
<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=</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">] on
behalf of Chip Akins [</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">]<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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi John and
Chandra<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 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 [</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">] <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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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>
<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=</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">] on
behalf of chandra [</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">chandra@phys.uconn.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">]<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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black">Chip:
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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:….” </span><span style="color:black"><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"><span style="font-size:10pt">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</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> ]</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black">Chandra.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="14bacee011e82aa5_14ba77172e92dc96__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></a><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 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
[</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">] <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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Chandra<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thank you for the note about
replying to “general”.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi John
Williamson<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Question:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Simplified illustration: The
arrows represent force, not motion.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><img alt="cid:image001.png@01D04DA5.E0CA20B0" src="cid:891ED75966F74D3FBE0CBEE6B0ED7095@HPlaptop" border="0" height="329" width="436"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thoughts?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 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 [</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>chandra<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:19
PM<br><b>To:</b> </span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:general@natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">general@natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><br><b>Subject:</b>
[General] FW: Photonic electron and spin</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:general@natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt">general@natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black">This is from
Chandra:</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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 “</span><span style="color:black"><a href="http://natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt">natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black">”. 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt">ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black">=============================</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black">Now my response
to:</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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:rgb(31,73,125)">a </span><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black">simple synthesis of engineering thinking
and theoretical formulation thinking. </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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 alt="cid:image002.png@01D04DA5.E0CA20B0" src="cid:CE16851446374AFFAA1E3C7EE6275909@HPlaptop" border="0" height="20" width="77"></span><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> . This
</span><span style="color:black"><img alt="cid:image003.png@01D04DA5.E0CA20B0" src="cid:2F69846F5C6F4F1FB44B20F44BFBAA5D@HPlaptop" border="0" height="20" 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 alt="cid:image004.png@01D04DA5.E0CA20B0" src="cid:6C1F168E8E8842179873F58A4278F9A1@HPlaptop" border="0" height="20" 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 alt="cid:image005.png@01D04DA5.E0CA20B0" src="cid:ADB9EE091C8F44A09A4AA9A1789587DF@HPlaptop" border="0" height="20" 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 alt="cid:image006.png@01D04DA5.E0CA20B0" src="cid:3AC4E975A01F4EEE83BE407978DB0335@HPlaptop" border="0" height="20" width="47"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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 alt="cid:image002.png@01D04DA5.E0CA20B0" src="cid:CE16851446374AFFAA1E3C7EE6275909@HPlaptop" border="0" height="20" width="77"></span><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> due to (now)
multiple particles </span><span style="color:black"><img alt="cid:image007.png@01D04DA5.E0CA20B0" src="cid:5AF8A5A400974453968299E297E42362@HPlaptop" border="0" height="23" 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black">Chandra.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 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 [</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">]
<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; </span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">wfhagen@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">; Hans
De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.;
Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson;
ninasobieraj; </span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">; '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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Adam:</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <img alt="GravitationalField" src="cid:EB66EE9886D64B8ABB6E58EFD2AB0E82@HPlaptop" border="0" height="131" width="242"></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><img alt="afield1form" src="cid:462F2FECEC2F4FCD9C16BD4FCD43BC48@HPlaptop" border="0" height="157" width="637">iti </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">See </span><span style="color:black"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation#Derivation_from_electromagnetic_theory" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Wikipedia</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">: <i><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></i>. 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><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></i><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Regards</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">John D</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">PS: I’ve got a forum,
see </span><span style="color:black"><a title="http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/index.php?sid=c5e137e15c020eca37d63f36a65748b5" href="http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/index.php?sid=c5e137e15c020eca37d63f36a65748b5" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="afokay@gmail.com" href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Adam
K</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="johnduffield@btconnect.com" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">John
Duffield</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">John
Williamson</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="chandra@phys.uconn.edu" href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">chandra</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="richgauthier@gmail.com" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Richard
Gauthier</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="af.kracklauer@web.de" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">A. F.
Kracklauer</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="sleary@vavi.co.uk" href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Stephen
Leary</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="rpenland@gmail.com" href="mailto:rpenland@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Ralph
Penland</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="wfhagen@gmail.com" href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">wfhagen@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" href="mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Hans De
Raedt</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Mark, Martin van
der</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="etherdais@gmail.com" href="mailto:etherdais@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">David Saint
John</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Timothy
Drysdale</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="osmera@fme.vutbr.cz" href="mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">CSc.</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Jonathan
Weaver</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com" href="mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rachel</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Robert
Hadfield</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="hudginswr@msn.com" href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">robert
hudgins</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="viv@etpsemra.com.au" href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Vivian
Robinson</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="ninasobieraj@tlen.pl" href="mailto:ninasobieraj@tlen.pl" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">ninasobieraj</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="matousek@fme.vutbr.cz" href="mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">'doc. Ing. Radomil
Matoušek</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com" href="mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Mayank
Drolia</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="mules333@gmail.com" href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Andrew
Meulenberg</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="fionavdburgt@gmail.com" href="mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Fiona van der
Burgt</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk" href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Michael
Wright</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk" href="mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Nick
Green</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Thanks,</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Adam </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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 <</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">> wrote:</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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 </span><span style="color:black"><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"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Leyden
Address</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Einstein talked about
space as the aether of general relativity. He said this:</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><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></i><i><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">mn</span></i><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">), has, I think, finally
disposed of the view that space is physically empty</span></i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">. </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">He said <i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">space</span></i>, not spacetime, and
he didn’t say it was curved. He said it was <i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">inhomogeneous</span></i>. Also see
</span><span style="color:black"><a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">this</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Baez article where you
can read this:</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><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></i><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Then see </span><span style="color:black"><a title="http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014" href="http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative
Interpretation of Curved Spacetime</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">. 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><img alt="EinsteinSpeedofLight" src="cid:9AD1EA1B73D741709A79F8B5C915D1A0@HPlaptop" border="0" height="335" width="484"></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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 </span><span style="color:black"><a href="http://bogpaper.com/science-on-sunday-with-john-duffield-gravity/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">this
explanation</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">. Also see the general
relativity section of </span><span style="color:black"><a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">this Baez
page</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> written by physics-FAQ
editor Don Koks:</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><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></i><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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, <i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">it is</span></i>. This is what Percy
Hammond and </span><span style="color:black"><a href="https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=electromagnetic+geometry" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">electromagnetic
geometry</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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, <i><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></i>. What he should have talked about, was an <i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">electron</span></i>.
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Regards</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">John </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">John
Williamson</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="afokay@gmail.com" href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Adam
K</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="chandra@phys.uconn.edu" href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">chandra</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="richgauthier@gmail.com" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Richard
Gauthier</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="af.kracklauer@web.de" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">A. F.
Kracklauer</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="sleary@vavi.co.uk" href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Stephen
Leary</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="rpenland@gmail.com" href="mailto:rpenland@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Ralph
Penland</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="wfhagen@gmail.com" href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">wfhagen@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" href="mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Hans De
Raedt</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Mark, Martin van
der</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="etherdais@gmail.com" href="mailto:etherdais@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">David Saint
John</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Timothy
Drysdale</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="osmera@fme.vutbr.cz" href="mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">CSc.</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Jonathan
Weaver</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com" href="mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rachel</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Robert
Hadfield</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="hudginswr@msn.com" href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">robert
hudgins</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="viv@etpsemra.com.au" href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Vivian
Robinson</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="ninasobieraj@tlen.pl" href="mailto:ninasobieraj@tlen.pl" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">ninasobieraj</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="matousek@fme.vutbr.cz" href="mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">'doc. Ing. Radomil
Matoušek</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="johnduffield@btconnect.com" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">John
Duffield</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com" href="mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Mayank
Drolia</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="mules333@gmail.com" href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Andrew
Meulenberg</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="fionavdburgt@gmail.com" href="mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Fiona van der
Burgt</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk" href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Michael
Wright</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk" href="mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Nick
Green</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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 [</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">afokay@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">]<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;
</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">wfhagen@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">; Hans De Raedt; Mark,
Martin van der; David Saint John; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver;
Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj;
</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">; '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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Chandra, <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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.)<u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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? <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Also, the other attachment seems
to be corrupted for me. Resend? <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Best
wishes,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Adam<u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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:<u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="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"><span style="font-size:10pt">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</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black">Sincerely,</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black">Chandra.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="14bacee011e82aa5_14ba77172e92dc96_14b982444d9b1641_14b940"></a><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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:</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">afokay@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">]
<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; </span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">wfhagen@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">; 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; </span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">; 'doc.
Ing. Radomil Matoušek; John Duffield; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona
van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: Photonic
electron and spin<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Hi John,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Why do you say this?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">space does not support torsion,
<u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Adam<u></u><u></u></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:<u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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
[</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">]<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; </span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">; 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; </span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">wfhagen@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br><b>Subject:</b> Re:
Photonic electron and spin</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10pt;line-height:13pt"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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 alt="ring_tor1_anim" src="cid:31A7F81896004B78BF61DD8B227C0BFE@HPlaptop" border="0" height="240" width="320">.
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10pt;line-height:13pt"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10pt;line-height:13pt"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">John
Williamson</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="johnduffield@btconnect.com" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">John
Duffield</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="viv@etpsemra.com.au" href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Vivian
Robinson</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="mules333@gmail.com" href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Andrew
Meulenberg</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="richgauthier@gmail.com" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Richard
Gauthier</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="matousek@fme.vutbr.cz" href="mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">"'doc. Ing. Radomil
Matoušek"</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="af.kracklauer@web.de" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">A. F.
Kracklauer</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="afokay@gmail.com" href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Adam
K</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="chandra@phys.uconn.edu" href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Chandrasekhar
Roychoudhuri</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" href="mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Hans De
Raedt</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="etherdais@gmail.com" href="mailto:etherdais@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">David Saint
John</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="fionavdburgt@gmail.com" href="mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Fiona van der
Burgt</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:Jonathan.Weaver@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Jonathan
Weaver</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Mark, Martin van
der</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com" href="mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Mayank
Drolia</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk" href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Michael
Wright</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk" href="mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Nick
Green</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="osmera@fme.vutbr.cz" href="mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">"prof. Ing. Pavel
Ošmera, CSc."</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com" href="mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rachel</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="rpenland@gmail.com" href="mailto:rpenland@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Ralph
Penland</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Robert
Hadfield</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="hudginswr@msn.com" href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">robert
hudgins</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="sleary@vavi.co.uk" href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Stephen
Leary</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:Tim.Drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Timothy
Drysdale</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="wfhagen@gmail.com" href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">wfhagen@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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
[</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">]<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; </span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">; 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; </span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">wfhagen@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br><b>Subject:</b> Re:
Photonic electron and spin</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Viv/Andrew:</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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 <i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">electromagnetic</span></i> field
variation, and the electron has an <i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">electromagnetic</span></i> 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">All: </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Regards</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">John</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="viv@etpsemra.com.au" href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Vivian
Robinson</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="mules333@gmail.com" href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Andrew
Meulenberg</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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">
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="richgauthier@gmail.com" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Richard
Gauthier</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="matousek@fme.vutbr.cz" href="mailto:matousek@fme.vutbr.cz" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">"'doc. Ing. Radomil
Matoušek"</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="af.kracklauer@web.de" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">A. F.
Kracklauer</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="afokay@gmail.com" href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Adam
K</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="chandra@phys.uconn.edu" href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Chandrasekhar
Roychoudhuri</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" href="mailto:h.a.de.raedt@rug.nl" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Hans De
Raedt</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="etherdais@gmail.com" href="mailto:etherdais@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">David Saint
John</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="fionavdburgt@gmail.com" href="mailto:fionavdburgt@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Fiona van der
Burgt</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="johnduffield@btconnect.com" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">John
Duffield</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">John
Williamson</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="jonathan.weaver@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:jonathan.weaver@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Jonathan
Weaver</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Mark, Martin van
der</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com" href="mailto:er.mayankdrolia@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Mayank
Drolia</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk" href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Michael
Wright</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk" href="mailto:nick_green@blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Nick
Green</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="osmera@fme.vutbr.cz" href="mailto:osmera@fme.vutbr.cz" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">"prof. Ing. Pavel
Ošmera, CSc."</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com" href="mailto:QKB.Enterprises@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rachel</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="rpenland@gmail.com" href="mailto:rpenland@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Ralph
Penland</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:Robert.Hadfield@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Robert
Hadfield</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="hudginswr@msn.com" href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">robert
hudgins</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="sleary@vavi.co.uk" href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Stephen
Leary</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="tim.drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:tim.drysdale@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Timothy
Drysdale</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> ;
</span><span style="color:black"><a title="wfhagen@gmail.com" href="mailto:wfhagen@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">wfhagen@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:none repeat scroll 0% 0% 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="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"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Cheers,</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Viv Robinson</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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 <</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mules333@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">> wrote:</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Andrew</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">_______________________________________________<br>If
you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at </span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><br><a
href="</span><span style="color:black"><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">"><br>Click here to
unsubscribe</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(136,136,136)"><br><span></a></span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="color:black"><br>_______________________________________________<br>If
you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk" target="_blank">sleary@vavi.co.uk</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/sleary%40vavi.co.uk?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/sleary%40vavi.co.uk?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click
here to unsubscribe<br></a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br><br clear="all"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-- <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Stephen
Leary<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="color:black">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray">The
information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected
under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">_______________________________________________<br>If
you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a><br><a
href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click
here to unsubscribe<br></a><u></u><u></u></span></p></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 <a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a><br><a
href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click
here to unsubscribe<br></a><br><p></p></div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com">mules333@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>