<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>John D said: "<font face="Calibri" size="3">We should “torque” about
neutrinos more, because they are more like photons than they’re like
electrons." </font><br><br></div>I thought that I was the only one crazy enough to talk about neutrinos as photons. Or photons as a subset of neutrinos. However, I suspect that this group might have others with the same perception. <br><br></div>I consider neutrinos to be photons from a relativistic bound electron. They should have, in addition to the oscillating E & B fields, an oscillating Mass field. I think that the argument that they must be fermions (to 'conserve' the fermion number of the neutron, electron, and proton) is bogus. They may be fermions and/or bosons, but the argument is bogus. I think that photons can be either, or both, fermions and bosons. Has anyone directly measured the spin of a neutrino (other than by comparison of the number of fermions present)?<br><br></div>If it <u>is</u> a photon from a relativistic electron, then the neutron is an electron plus a proton and that is 'forbidden' speech. However, when the concept of the neutron was 'defined' (set in concrete), there were no charge-density profiles available to point to and defend the bound-electron model. There are now.<br><br></div>This group could be self-consistently redefining the foundations of modern physics.<br><br></div>Andrew<br><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:06 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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;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:#000000">
<div>John:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sorry to be slow getting back to you. Yes, Robert Close is a good man, and
he isn’t crazy, and nor are we. The people who say the electron is a
point-particle are crazy. No, I don’t understand that “essential point”. I
simplify the electron to a photon going round in a circle, then move the circle
such that one point on the circumference traces out a helix, and all points on
the circumference trace out a cylinder. It has more energy so it has a higher
frequency, and it’s subject to SR time dilation, but I don’t get your point. I
“root for relativity”, but a Lorentz transformation is just Pythagoras’s
theorem, as per the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity" target="_blank">simple
inference of time dilation due to relative velocity</a>. And that velocity
might be relative, I might be passing by it, it hasn’t changed, I have. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font style="FONT-SIZE:10pt" color="#0000ff"><em>This is
because the Lorentz transformations for clocks and for energies (or frequencies)
transform differently - as I said before. The underlying reason they do this is
that they need to do this to preserve the linearity of energy. Energy trumps
space and time. That is the point. This argument has also been looked into, long
ago, by Jan Hilgevoord, in a paper which suggests that frequency is more
fundamental than time. I would agree to a point ... but would argue
that one needs both! Energy is the stronger, and space and time must bend to it,
but space and time do not vanish - they merely
transform.</em></font></font></div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font style="FONT-SIZE:10pt"></font></font> </div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font style="FONT-SIZE:10pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Sorry John, I’m not getting this. Have I ever told you that space
and energy seem to be the same thing? It’s like space is this gin-clear ghostly
elastic jelly, that can be subjected to pressure and shear stress. And to do
this you stick in a gedanken hypodermic needle, and inject some gin-clear
ghostly elastic jelly. </font></font></font></div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font style="FONT-SIZE:10pt"></font></font> </div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font style="FONT-SIZE:10pt"><img title="StressEnergyTensor_contravariant_svg" style="BORDER-TOP:0px;BORDER-RIGHT:0px;BACKGROUND-IMAGE:none;BORDER-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;BORDER-LEFT:0px;DISPLAY:inline;PADDING-RIGHT:0px" alt="StressEnergyTensor_contravariant_svg" src="cid:D672F072C8514D939A001F78E3D725F9@HPlaptop" border="0" height="194" width="320"> </font></font></div><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font>
<div><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font><br><br><font color="#0000ff"><em>Martin discovered this
feature (of both slowing and quickening) independently (about our model) way
back in 1991 or 1992 (I forget exactly when but could look it up in my daybook)
This was before we first tried submitting the material eventually published in
1997. The de Broglie wavelength, itself, then arises as the beat between these
two "clocks". One speeding up and one slowing down. All of us came to this long
after de Broglie, who wrote about it in his thesis in 1923 (If I remember
the date).<br></em></font></div>
<div><font><font face="Calibri">Can you send
me something, or a reference? I rather thought the electron wavelength was there
because h is what it is. One way of expressing the dimensionality of action is
momentum x distance. Like Maxwell’s transverse undulations all share the same
amplitude. Like you pluck a guitar string, the wavelength varies as you move
your left hand on the frets, but your pluck is uniform. </font></font></div>
<div><font><font face="Calibri"></font></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff"><em>At that time we were unaware that this had been
done before by de Broglie. That was pointed out to us, as I said in a previous
email, by Ulrich Enz (the father of the soliton). I think he got hold of a copy
of our second (1994) attempt paper - and got in touch with us then (am I right
Martin?). It was de Broglie's work that, LED to quantum mechanics a few years
later. In other words QM is, and was originally, DERIVED from a proper
consideration of relativity. THis knowledge is now essentially lost to most
physicists as it is considered too advanced and too hard conceptually. There are
only Two other physicists I have met who knew about this before I told them-
Alex Afriat and the great Basil Hiley. Neither they (nor I) have a forum to
teach this as it is, indeed, too advanced for undergrads. THis is how such
things as this (and the Godel stuff) get lost.<br></em></font><br><font><font><font face="Calibri" size="3">There’s plenty of stuff that’s been “lost”. Sometimes I feel like
I’m working with the lost secrets of the ancients. Again, please send me
something. </font></font></font></div>
<div><font size="3"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff"><em>The point is that the fact that the rulers, clocks
and energies transform, does not mean they go away. THey just look a bit smaller
or a bit bigger, thats all. Ones man space is anothers time (4 cpts). These four
components merge into one another according with the LONGITUDINAL cpt of space
mixing with that of time according to relativity. One scales with
one.<br></em></font><br><font face="Calibri" size="3">We are made of light, we
measure space with the motion of light, we measure time with the motion of
light, and when we move, our measurements shift. Things look a bit smaller or a
bit bigger, but they didn’t change, we did. </font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff">Field is different. Ones man's magnetic field is
anothers electric and vice versa. Here it is not the longitudinal cpts but
the TRANSVERSE cpts that transform. Look at the equations! Two scales with two
(although both are defined in just one (transverse) direction). In fact Ex goes
to By and so on. Look at the Maxwell equations. Think light. Think
photons.<br><br></font><font face="Calibri"><font size="3">I must
nitpick on this, because the field is the electromagnetic field, and IMHO the
“electric field” is a name you give to the linear force you see when two
electromagnetic fields interact. Add some relative motion, and you also see a
“magnetic field” which is the name you give to the rotational force. In a magnet
the linear forces cancel and you only see magnetic force, and we call that a
magnetic field. But the electron doesn’t have an electric field, or a magnetic
field, it has an electromagnetic field, like this:</font></font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"></font></font> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"><img title="EMfield2" style="BORDER-TOP:0px;BORDER-RIGHT:0px;BACKGROUND-IMAGE:none;BORDER-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;BORDER-LEFT:0px;DISPLAY:inline;PADDING-RIGHT:0px" alt="EMfield2" src="cid:69791C4D2CAE4CC9A7E7C6DCBDE6772C@HPlaptop" border="0" height="216" width="644">. </font></font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"></font></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff"><em>Look - we very very nearly agree completely (and I
really appreciate you sticking to your guns!). All you would have to do now to
get complete agreement would be to convince me that energy was
motion.</em></font> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri" size="3">I don’t quite think it is, because in a black
hole motion is time-dilated to oblivion, and the energy is still there. But in
the normal scheme of thing the photon is a pressure-pulse propagating though
space at c, and it can be put through repeated Compton scattering and converted
entirely into the motion of electrons. And yet we can make an electron out of
it. So the electron is <em>made</em> out of motion, going nowhere fast, all
round and round at c such that the field-variation looks like a standing wave.
Standing wave, standing field. Zitterbewegung apart, it looks like it isn’t
moving at all. But it is, because after annihilation your photons are off like a
shot, and they don’t do this from a standing start. </font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff">This has some truth in it, for me, but you would find
me arguing that, properly, energy is more like axial motion. E = h nu - angular
momentum times frequency - still an axial vector and not a linear movement
(space over time c.f. space over perpendicular space). This is axial or (space/
parallel space) scalar. What you do to add energy to a photon is to spin it up,
not make it go faster. It does not go faster (as you said!). Torque and energy
have the same units (newton metres) but are different. For energy to be motion
it would have to be scalar, point, invariant motion. Stationary motion. Motion
which is still (and invariant) in every frame. Hey .. I can do this. Williamson
introduces the new concept of static motion. We could call it (rest) mass. We
could also have twisting motion - the axial part - we could call that photons or
we could call that energy. Who said argument was not a good thing!</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri" size="3">Sounds good to me. We should “torque” about
neutrinos more, because they are more like photons than they’re like
electrons. </font><br><br><font color="#0000ff">Want to write a john-john
paper about it?</font><br></div>
<div>Yeah! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>NB: I have to go away tomorrow and plan to come back on Wednesday. I expect
to be incommunicado, and it could turn into a week away. Meanwhile have a
nice time with Martin. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div>John D </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;FONT-FAMILY:'Calibri';COLOR:#000000"></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:small;TEXT-DECORATION:none;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri";FONT-WEIGHT:normal;COLOR:#000000;FONT-STYLE:normal;DISPLAY:inline">
<div style="FONT:10pt tahoma">
<div><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND:#f5f5f5">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">John Williamson</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 11, 2015 4:38 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] Velocity of the Coulomb
Field</div></div></div>
<div> </div></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:small;TEXT-DECORATION:none;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri";FONT-WEIGHT:normal;COLOR:#000000;FONT-STYLE:normal;DISPLAY:inline">
<div style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:tahoma;COLOR:#000000;DIRECTION:ltr">Right,
I have read it. <br><br>Hope the robustness of the following does not shock any
of our other new friends, but we know each other so here goes ....<br><br>Robert
Close is right, as far as he goes. Remember who you are talking to though. This
is the same Williamson who has been saying that particles are made of light for
over a quarter of a century. Who has been saying that the transformations of the
electron are the same as the transformations of light all along. This IS argued
strongly in the 1997 paper. Look at it! Close is close, but still just not quite
there. (Good man though, do you know him?) He is clearly crazy like us, but for
me not just quite crazy enough!<br><br>THis is all true. We have not been
disagreeing about this. Re-read the previous correspondence! WE both agree now,
agreed then and continue to agree that the reason one measures the same speed in
any frame is just because the rulers and clocks BOTH scale with lightspeed. Yes.
Yes yes yes yes yes! This is the point!<br><br>You are STILL, however, missing
another essential point.<br><br>That is that, for particles (or bound photons)
BOTH clocks slow down (tick more slowly) AND, simultaneously, oscillate more
quickly (tick more quickly). I will say this again (but only once)
...<br><br>For particles (or bound photons) BOTH clocks slow down (tick more
slowly) AND, simultaneously, oscillate more quickly (tick more quickly).
<br><br><br>This is because the Lorentz transformations for clocks and for
energies (or frequencies) transform differently - as I said before. The
underlying reason they do this is that they need to do this to preserve the
linearity of energy. Energy trumps space and time. That is the point. This
argument has also been looked into, long ago, by Jan Hilgevoord, in a paper
which suggests that frequency is more fundamental than time. I would agree to a
point ... but would argue that one needs both! Energy is the
stronger, and space and time must bend to it, but space and time do not vanish -
they merely transform.<br><br>Martin discovered this feature (of both slowing
and quickening) independently (about our model) way back in 1991 or 1992 (I
forget exactly when but could look it up in my daybook) This was before we first
tried submitting the material eventually published in 1997. The de Broglie
wavelength, itself, then arises as the beat between these two "clocks". One
speeding up and one slowing down. All of us came to this long after de Broglie,
who wrote about it in his thesis in 1923 (If I remember the
date).<br><br>At that time we were unaware that this had been done before by de
Broglie. That was pointed out to us, as I said in a previous email, by Ulrich
Enz (the father of the soliton). I think he got hold of a copy of our second
(1994) attempt paper - and got in touch with us then (am I right Martin?). It
was de Broglie's work that, LED to quantum mechanics a few years later. In other
words QM is, and was originally, DERIVED from a proper consideration of
relativity. THis knowledge is now essentially lost to most physicists as it is
considered too advanced and too hard conceptually. There are only Two other
physicists I have met who knew about this before I told them- Alex Afriat and
the great Basil Hiley. Neither they (nor I) have a forum to teach this as it is,
indeed, too advanced for undergrads. THis is how such things as this (and the
Godel stuff) get lost.<br><br>The point is that the fact that the rulers, clocks
and energies transform, does not mean they go away. THey just look a bit smaller
or a bit bigger, thats all. Ones man space is anothers time (4 cpts). These four
components merge into one another according with the LONGITUDINAL cpt of space
mixing with that of time according to relativity. One scales with
one.<br><br>Field is different. Ones man's magnetic field is anothers electric
and vice versa. Here it is not the longitudinal cpts but the TRANSVERSE
cpts that transform. Look at the equations! Two scales with two (although both
are defined in just one (transverse) direction). In fact Ex goes to By and so
on. Look at the Maxwell equations. Think light. Think photons.<br><br>Space and
time continue to exist. Space and time are what you are, what you live in and
are mirrored in the space we construct around us in our minds.<br><br>Look - we
very very nearly agree completely (and I really appreciate you sticking to your
guns!). All you would have to do now to get complete agreement would be to
convince me that energy was motion. This has some truth in it, for me, but you
would find me arguing that, properly, energy is more like axial motion. E = h nu
- angular momentum times frequency - still an axial vector and not a linear
movement (space over time c.f. space over perpendicular space). This is axial or
(space/ parallel space) scalar. What you do to add energy to a photon is to spin
it up, not make it go faster. It does not go faster (as you said!). Torque and
energy have the same units (newton metres) but are different. For energy to be
motion it would have to be scalar, point, invariant motion. Stationary motion.
Motion which is still (and invariant) in every frame. Hey .. I can do this.
Williamson introduces the new concept of static motion. We could call it (rest)
mass. We could also have twisting motion - the axial part - we could call that
photons or we could call that energy. Who said argument was not a good
thing!<br><br>Want to write a john-john paper about it?<br><br>Think about
it!<br><br>- John Williamson.<br>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:16px;FONT-FAMILY:times new roman;COLOR:#000000">
<hr>
<div style="DIRECTION:ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> 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 John Duffield [<a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>]<br><b>Sent:</b>
Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:24 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb
Field<br></font><br></div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;FONT-FAMILY:'Calibri';COLOR:#000000">
<div>John,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I must insist on giving some feedback:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><em>I do not think there is any badness out there</em></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Do not fool yourself. There is backstabbing double-dealing propaganda and
censorship from charlatans and quacks peddling pseudoscience woo and engaged in
scientific fraud. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><em>relativity means the speed of light is always constant and, on the
other, that it is actually infinite.</em></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Relativity means it’s neither constant nor infinite. The wave nature of
matter makes it <em>look</em> constant, but it isn’t. It <em>looks</em> constant
because <em>you are made of light</em>. Read the attached. Print it out, sit
down, and read it. Try to find fault with it. When you can’t, mull it over, and
appreciate that the wave nature of matter means the motion of waves is the only
thing you’ve got to calibrate your rods and clocks. Then remember what I said
this morning. If there’s one little thing that you get wrong, bad people will
use it to discredit you and everything else you say. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><em>the speed is exactly c whenever you measure it , in any inertial frame.
Proof- experiment. Secondly, one can always accelerate a particle, adding
momentum and energy indefinitely. Proof -experiment.</em></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The speed is c when you measure it because you use the motion of light to
define your second and your metre. Then when you measure that light going to the
moon and back, you measure 299,792,458m/s, not some infinite speed. Proof –
experiment. </div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman"></font> </div>
<div><em>Now comes the hard part, taking this on board</em></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The hard part is abandoning an idea you’ve fallen in love with. Whether
it’s the charged photon or the infinite speed of light or a
wormhole. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><em>The way in which space and time vary relativistically from observer to
observer comes from a deeper principle. </em></div>
<div><em></em> </div>
<div>Space waves and waves move, and that’s all there is. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div>John</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;FONT-FAMILY:'Calibri';COLOR:#000000"></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:small;TEXT-DECORATION:none;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri";FONT-WEIGHT:normal;COLOR:#000000;FONT-STYLE:normal;DISPLAY:inline">
<div style="FONT:10pt tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND:#f5f5f5">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">John Williamson</a>
</div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:42 AM</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] Velocity of the Coulomb
Field</div></div></div>
<div> </div></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:small;TEXT-DECORATION:none;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri";FONT-WEIGHT:normal;COLOR:#000000;FONT-STYLE:normal;DISPLAY:inline">
<div style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:tahoma;COLOR:#000000;DIRECTION:ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:0pt"><span lang="EN-US">Brilliant!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:0pt"><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:0pt"><span lang="EN-US">Thank you for
those kind words.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:0pt"><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:0pt"><span lang="EN-US">I think I see the
problem now and will try to help fix it.<br><br>Before I do so I have a little
request. I have submitted dozens of papers in the last few years, but few have
made it into print. I am getting very, very tired. I have a lot of energy - but
this is exhausting me. I do not think there is any badness out there - I think
people genuinely do not get what I am trying to say. Mostly my fault, I am
sure. I'm very curious, nevertheless as to what IS out there. Since you
have been looking, could you please forward to me what you have been able to
find? I could then fill you (and the group) in on a few of the papers covering
that which is missing.<br><br>Right - absolute relativity, infinite speed of
light and all that rubbish. That idiot Williamson has been saying, on the one
hand that relativity means the speed of light is always constant and, on the
other, that it is actually infinite. Can the crazy fool please just make up his
mind! I'm afraid this kind of thing always happens and is, almost
certainly, one of the reasons I'm having trouble getting things into print these
days (when I used to think it was a bad year if I did not have my name on at
least a few Phys. Rev Letters). <br><br>The thing is that Both are true in my
crazy mind at the same time. There is, however, no contradiction there of the
kind I just tried to explain in the problems of QED in my earlier email.
This kind of thing does tend to drive folk nuts. I think I nearly killed Stephen
when he was my PhD student. He would say - you say one thing - then you say
another and then worse, you change it back to the first thing. It is a wonder
that we are still (good) friends! Cheers Stephen!<br><br>To the point ... the
speed is exactly c whenever you measure it , in any inertial frame. Proof-
experiment. Secondly, one can always accelerate a particle, adding
momentum and energy indefinitely. Proof -experiment. This is why I say the speed
is limited (exp 1) and yet infinitely extensible (exp2), and hence for all
practical purposes (FAPP), infinite. It just is. Now comes the hard part, taking
this on board, taking the consequences of the (absolute craziness) and
understanding it. This is really quite hard, conceptually. As John D says in his
book - if you think you understand it you should be able to explain it. I will
do my best ...<br><br>I understand this in terms of my principle of absolute
relativity. What is that? (its in the new theory of light and matter). Contrary
to what you may have understood from my previous statements (everything is
relative) it is really more about the fact that everything, to any given
observer (absorber) or emitter, or indeed any intermediating photon in an
inter-action - everything is absolute.<br><br>Absolutely what? Absolutely in the
frame of space and time of the absorber (for the absorber). Absolutely in the
(different) frame of space and time for the emitter (for the emitter). And
(almost) absolutely in another absolute and (very nearly incomprehensible) third
frame for the intermediating photon. It is only in terms of our own frame that
we can understand things (this is where the confusion comes in for the
experimenters in the paper you sent me). Now I am going to put all this in a
proper paper, and present it in San Diego (if I can scrape together enough money
to come) but will try to explain it now.<br><br>It is the idea that one must, in
all frames, in all spaces and for all times, associate any quantity with its
proper space-time form. The basis of any objects inter-action with the universe
is as related to their one and only proper, space and time. This space and this
time is not common, but is unique to that specific observer. This is because, in
relativity and, as Stephen put it in his thesis, "one mans space is another mans
time.<br><br>How do I implement this mathematically? It is by insisting that
neither space nor time may appear without this proper form. Now this leads to a
new kind of mathematics. Some of this is explained in an unpublished Martin-John
paper "On division and the algebra of reality" but I should warn you that the
absolute relativity thing currently goes beyond even Martin's comfort zone at
the moment. He, when challenged as to why he is not happy says - "but you have
just made it up". In this he is, of course, quite right. So from here on if you
want to come with me this is into crazy-John-think... This universe may, or may
not, correspond to reality (probably not!) Here is what I think it does if you
do it though...<br><br>What I claim this leads to (in the paper not currently on
arXiv) are several things. These include, amongst other things, the necessary
quantisation of allowed travelling-wave solutions of the ordinary Maxwell
equations. Though charge is not introduced (I just add a rest MASS term) charge
appears in the allowed solutions because the rapidly spiraling field of the
photon becomes pure radial due to the confinement. One may calculate this pure
radial effective charge and it is close to that of the electron. The analogy
here is to our earlier paper, but the charge remains roughly the same. In other
words I'm claiming that (absolute) relativity is responsible, for the
quantisation of light, for the appearance of charge in charge particles (and not
as some background charge density as in the Richard, model, QM, RQM and QED) and
for the creation of Fermi- like states from Bose-like states. Thats
all.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:0pt"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:0pt"><span lang="EN-US">The reconcilation
of all this lies in what John D and Godel and Einstein were trying to get to as
in the earlier discussion. The way in which space and time vary relativistically
from observer to observer comes from a deeper principle. That principle remains
to be fully revealed but is in the nature of transformation, the underlying
nature of movement, the nature of space, time and the universe itself. The big
problem we are all working on. Whatever that principle is, we all understand and
observe our universe on the basis of our space and our time. Also we relate
that, and describe it in our mathematics, as changes (differentials-divisions-
Leonardo projections) with respect to our space and our time. Our concept of
motion itself (which is more fundamental in my view – I am with John D on that )
is our space divided by our time. A ratio then. This is why, IMHO, understanding
division properly is so important. If you look at that ratio - actually look at
it properly, impassionately and cooly in the mathematics of relativity, the
problem comes because one is reaching towards a point where the division is
undefined because the divisor heads towards zero. This is, technically, because
any relativistic algebra is not a division algebra. Division becomes undefined
on the lightcone. This was your problem when you tried to go to the co-moving
photon frame (redshifted to oblivion- love the phrase) and BOOm your brain
went on tilt. Space -no ... time-no ... brain ... no no noooooooo. This on
normal - no need to worry!<br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:0pt"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:0pt"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>The principle of absolute relativity is more space
and time leading to light and charge, rather than light leading to charge or
vice-versa. I think Chandra has got precisely the right theme for his Thursday
discussion. Well done that man!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:0pt"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:0pt"><span lang="EN-US">Can’t wait
…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:0pt"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:0pt"><span lang="EN-US">Cheers,
John.</span></p>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:16px;FONT-FAMILY:times new roman;COLOR:#000000">
<hr>
<div style="DIRECTION:ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> 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 Chip Akins [<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">chipakins@gmail.com</a>]<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 10,
2015 4:12 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb
Field<br></font><br></div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Hi John W</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">I have searched for the paper you
referred to…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">“</span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">The
"principle of absolute relativity" explained in the paper I circulated (and not
put up on arXiv!)</span><span style="COLOR:black">” </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">I have many of the papers you have
written but would like to make sure I have and read this paper. I have <u>“a new
theory of light and matter</u>”. Is that the paper to which you are
referring?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">If not would it be convenient for
you to send it to me once more? I am very interested in reading it
carefully.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-TOP:#e1e1e1 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-TOP:3pt;PADDING-LEFT:0in;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-RIGHT:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif"> General
[mailto:<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 Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 09, 2015 10:46
PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb
Field</span></p></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Excellent
Chip!<br><br>I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that I am very much going to
meeting you and, perhaps, working with you. I loved reading the experimental
papers, even if a bit guiltily as I should not have made the time for them (or
the time for this come to that, but I cannot resist). The only minor pain for me
was downloading the stuff from arXiv. <br><br>Briefly, I think the experiment
can be explained using a proper, classical approach. For me this is in terms of
the "principle of absolute relativity" explained in the paper I circulated (and
not put up on arXiv!). This level of complexity is, however, not neccessary and
just ordinary relativity and classical field theory is enough - and all that is
used here.<br><br>I think there are several misconceptions and mistakes in some
of the arguments presented in the paper - but would have to put a good amount of
time into analysis and discussion of the paper to satisfy myself as to exactly
what and where. I'm sorry if this is disappointing - but I will not have
time to do that in detail - only to point up one or two avenues for
investigation if anyone else wants to take them up. I would like to hasten to
add that these are not the fault of the experimenters-they come across as an
excellent group, but in terms of the analysis of the various theories and
models, or speculations as I prefer to call them (with Faraday). There is a
remark attributed to Dirac that, after sitting politely through a talk which
ended up deriving the wrong sign in the final expression and on which the
speaker commented " I must have made a sign mistake somewhere", Dirac replied
-"I think you will find that all you know is that you have made an odd number of
mistakes" (thanks for flagging that one up for me Weaver). I should also say
that, with my propensity for sign-blindness- that speaker could easily have been
me! With that proviso - here we go ...<br><br>Firstly - in the virtual
exchange particle picture: as Viv has already commented on this forum, there are
very serious problems if one steps outside of the narrow scope of QED. The
most important for me, experimentally, is that there is a missing mass many
orders of magnitude larger than that of the entire universe. In that sense it is
not particulary surprising that it does not work here at the level of a few
standard deviations. The problem, in my view is not with QED's basic postulates,
but with the insistence in some circles that one needs point particles. In my
view, those propounding this view should simply know better - this is manifestly
too simplistic an idea. It is manifestly wrong experimentally - not only as
shown by this experiment but also by simple observation of the universe. This is
not to say QED is wrong- it is just not the whole story. It fits experiment well
within its realm of validity and any future theory will have to reduce to it in
the proper limit-as well as explaining its origins.<br><br>Secondly - the
argument of authority. It is always wrong to follow authority without thought.
Especially Feynmann. He would either have been horrified, or have laughed at you
(or both!). Having said this Feynmann was usually very, very right. He was,
famously however, very confused about (electromagnetic) fields. He was even
excited about not knowing what they were or how they worked! Look guys ... here
is something I don't get ... (do you get it is the implied question). No. Not in
his lifetime. Not to his satisfaction. Don't you just wish you could have
explained it to him! Einstein too .. his work is littered with "in" jokes. This
was his way of dealing with what my grandad would have called TBS - " too bloody
serious". Einstien too had fun in physics - and so should we. One can only do
this by thinking for oneself (cheers John D!). Chandra has stressed this too -
we must remain free-thinking. <br><br>Thirdly- the only two options trick. This
works for kids. It is not, however, only the rigid bar electron-way or the
QED-way. I think there is a third way - the proper way. This needs an underlying
answer to the whole process.<br><br>Fourthly: the wonder that the LW stuff gives
the same answer as "infinite velocity". Nope, relativity is precisely the proper
transformation which does this (in the paper I should be writing now instead of
this!). The relativity is already in the LW approach. The "infinite velocity" is
a problem in understanding, not in actuality.<br><br>Fifthly: I have a feeling
Feynmann may have not got the whole story here. I will leave this to QED
theorists to argue with the experimentalists. Not my job-too much
work!<br><br>Sixthly: the connection with the "high velocity" by the Chinese
group (in the </span><u><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Bounding the speed of
‘spooky action at a distance paper)</span></u><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">. This
misconception is rife. It is related to the lack of understanding of what a
(quantum) state IS. It is a coherent state with proper, relativistic, harmonic
resonant connection through space and time. The fact we use use nonrelativistic
QM (usually with the Copenhagen interpretation) to try to describe it is our
problem not its. I spent many days and a great deal of effort some years ago
trying to get this across to a (now famous) physicist who shall remain nameless.
He has then used the ideas (if a bit garbled) - without giving any credit as far
as I am aware. That is fine- he has probably just forgotten where it came
from... no more help of that kind from me though!<br><br>Chip - pilot wave - not
a problem this ... you may be right. Was talking to Basil Hiley (of de Broglie,
Bohm, Hiley ...) a few months ago about some aspects of this for a (far too
short) half day. He is brilliant and very much alive. I think the pilot wave
picture is still missing something as well though. Perhaps we should bring him
in on this...<br><br>Ok, enough about problems (and that was only an even
number). What about a story about (classical) solutions?<br><br>It is
traditional to give names to observers in thought-experiments. As is well known,
all electron names must end in -on. I would like to consider members of two
groups of these most excellent objects. The first group is our hero the
magnificent Beamon - a happy (superhero) electron in the beam. The others are
the Labrons - a bit slow this group, stuck as they are in the lab - spend a lot
of time keeping themselves amused by synchronising their watches and measuring
stuff- otherwise a worthy lot. I want to consider the experiment from two
perspectives, that of Beamon and that of the Labrons. Firstly Beamon had an
altercation a while ago with a giant particle accelerator ten to the fifteen
times his own size. Gave him quite a kick. No problem - he walloped it by
emitting a photon corresponding to precisely the difference in perfectly radial
field in his old and new frames. And he had his magnificent, perfectly radial,
electric field back in next to no time - in his own frame. That photon-child is
no longer his concern as it sped off happily zillions of cycles ago, at the
speed of light. It is no longer in his frame and no longer his worry. It is way
ahead of him, and way ahead of the now-upcoming lab. Beamon is serene now,
perfectly rigidly radial at the center of his new beautiful, radial, field.
Suddenly, up rushes the entire laboratory full of labrons, travelling, relative
to him, at nearly the speed of light. The whole lab appears very distorted to
him- evn if all its filed sseem to be rigind enogh and bound to the
labrons. That (acceleraton) photon is ago (is history) both for him and
for the labrons. The labrons fields are attenuated by local protons to lie
within a de-broglie radius - not magnificent and extensively radial like his
own. All their ruler-clocks seem a bit off with respect to his- but this is
normal for labrons. They seem excited to see him - checking that his field, is,
indeed, perfectly radial far out into the vacuum as he is maintaining it and has
been maintaining it (as is required by the Great Gauge) far out into the vacuum
around him - in both their frame and his. He knew that. He is Beamon the
magnificent.<br><br>What the labrons actually saw, however, was a massive, self
important, near lightspeed electron with a total mass given by self-energy plus
external field energy - all rigidly bound to his centre of
mass.<br><br>Explanation: as I said before in the John D discussion the speed of
light is, properly, infinite in the sense that there is no limit to how much one
can accelerate. The problem lies in the interpretation of the way in which
rulers and clocks firstly distort and secondly merge seamlessly into one another
in order to maintain the proper linearity of the universe. Ascribing a starting
clock to this theory or that is meaningless. Things would be different if the
event of acceleration occurred within the experimental time frame. That would
then be a scattering experiment or a photon emission experiment though. Here the
whole experiment, beam plus detector, is pre-prepared. The only place for real
or virtual photons here is in the mind of he experimenter, not in the experiment
itself (as the experiment, indeed, shows).<br><br>Conclusion: this is really the
same thing as the explanation with the (properly) relativistic LW
transformations. As is observed (yet again) in experiment. It does not mean the
electric field is "faster than light" though. It just means it exists.
This is because the concept of speed is difficult to grasp when all your rulers
and clocks are bendy-relativistic (as John D and I were trying to get to the
bottom of in the previous discussion). What it means is that each inter-actor
sees the universe from its own perspective. What it reveals is the conceptual
difficulties one goes through in trying to make up the stories for oneself.
<br><br>in short, my view: yes, of course. It is just a consequence of special
relativity. The QED chappies (and ourselves) need to lighten up a bit and not be
TBS.<br><br>Cheers, John.<br><br>P.S. If one goes to the advanced potentials as
well (the Wheeler-Feynmann stuff discussed earlier) all this works too. This
stuff is "faster than light". The reason for this is that the equations of
special relativity are symettric about the speed of light. So if one could take
a test mass (or light-in-a-box) of rest mass m accelerate it to lightspeed (at
which point it becomes mass infinite, -for light one photon path blue-shifted to
infinite - and then keep going .. the the relativistic total mass would come
down again in the tachyonic regime, to reach precisely m again at precisely
infinite velocity. This is mere maths of course - and reality may be
different!</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 Chip Akins [<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">chipakins@gmail.com</a>]<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 09,
2015 5:23 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb
Field</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Hi All</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Some thoughts are included
regarding the velocity of “charge”.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Any thoughts are welcomed and
appreciated.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT:0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;COLOR:black;LINE-HEIGHT:105%">The experiment,
“<u>Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields</u>” [7], was conducted in
2012 and repeated in 2014 with the same results. This gives us some very
valuable new information, and requires that we consider the implications of this
discovery. This discovery may help us understand the apparent “pilot wave”
concept, and even possibly may shed light (so to speak) on the evidence of
non-locality and entanglement. </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT:0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;COLOR:black;LINE-HEIGHT:105%">At the very least this
discovery indicates to us that charge is not correctly understood by the
exchange of “virtual photons” <i>traveling at the speed of
light</i>.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT:0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;COLOR:black;LINE-HEIGHT:105%">If we also take into
account the study “<u>Bounding the speed of ‘spooky action at a distance’</u>”
[6] which infers the minimum velocity for the <i>action at a distance</i> at
13800 times c, which would appear to be infinite is short range
experiments.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT:0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;COLOR:black;LINE-HEIGHT:105%"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT:0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;COLOR:black;LINE-HEIGHT:105%">If believe that normal
EM radiation is in the form of transverse waves, where the wave motion is
perpendicular to the direction of travel. Let us look at the possibility that
charge is propagated as a longitudinal wave (“by analogy a compression wave”
displacement) instead of a transverse wave. </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">The velocity of a standard
longitudinal wave in a medium is <img src="cid:91FC4C699A70481A906D7F2C18A86302@HPlaptop" height="57" width="86">
where K is the “bulk (longitudinal compression) modulus of the medium, μ is the
shear (transverse elastic) modulus of the medium, and <i>p</i> is the “density”
of the medium. The velocity of a transverse wave is</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"><img src="cid:1A049F6B61DB4AF3ABCF2FA42A079D3B@HPlaptop" height="39" width="69">.
We know that the velocity of normal transverse EM waves is <img src="cid:2DBCD82D2D504AAF9B44AFA0E03673EC@HPlaptop" height="39" width="66">so that
we can restate that <img src="cid:B045D7566BE441A2BA10088E7A31426B@HPlaptop" height="40" width="78">or <img src="cid:EEA82B92AC664BF59734F40282DFD1A4@HPlaptop" height="26" width="22"><img src="cid:5DD37B8B3721465B93D60ED61E01863F@HPlaptop" height="30" width="23">and <img src="cid:978538F9D37342B89C74B6D6CBCC1E8A@HPlaptop" height="28" width="54">or<img src="cid:3C5FF2E0B31F449BA4DE54F5CA6EEEB5@HPlaptop" height="28" width="59"> .
If we start by arbitrarily assigning p = c times Planck time or the value
1.616244097494180e-35, (for the media of space we will assume this to be a
dimensionless value), then we arrive at a transverse modulus: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"><img src="cid:B3C2E7F1EA2A4B499095E85714BE532C@HPlaptop" height="19" width="36">1.452607752869007e-18 and a longitudinal modulus: K =
2.766346185195634e-10 yielding a propagation velocity of <i>c</i> for transverse
EM waves and a speed of 13800 times c for longitudinal “charge”.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Establishing a realistic value for
<i>p</i> “density” will be an interesting challenge.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">But we can see that it is possible
for a longitudinal (and by analogy) “pressure” wave, in the E field to propagate
much faster than <i>c</i> provided there is the appropriate transverse modulus
and longitudinal modulus.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Using this approach, charge
interaction can be viewed as an exchange of a new type of virtual particle. That
virtual particle would be comprised of a longitudinal wave with a specific
polarity (+ or -) arriving first, and traveling at 13800 times the speed of
light.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">If this is the actual mechanism at
work, we also then have an explanation for faster than light quantum tunneling.
In FTL quantum tunneling events, the energy in the normally transverse wave
would be topologically forced to adopt a longitudinal configuration while
tunneling.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">One additional implication exists
related to this possible new speed of charge. These longitudinal waves may
only be sensed by either another charge, or by a change in ε<sub>0</sub> and
μ<sub>0</sub> induced in spacetime, in areas with a high density of these
longitudinal waves. This provides a possible cause for gravity, and would
suggest that gravity also propagates at maybe 13800 times the speed of light.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Note: “Cancelling” one
charge with another does not reduce the density of these waves. The
concept is that a high density of these crossing and interacting longitudinal
waves adds an embedded “stress” to spacetime, changing<img src="cid:A2EBAF83DAD649D1868FEEE4559B368A@HPlaptop" height="19" width="69"></span><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;COLOR:black">, </span><span style="COLOR:black">reducing the speed of transverse waves, and therefore the
speed of the waves comprising light and matter.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Please feel free to disagree and
point out the errors and flaws in this conjecture.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-TOP:#e1e1e1 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-TOP:3pt;PADDING-LEFT:0in;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-RIGHT:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:black">From:</span></b><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:black">
General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 09, 2015
10:34 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double-loop electron model
discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Chip, </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> Could you please also
answer the short questions below about your electron model, that I put to John
and Martin about their electron model. This might turn into a small survey about
features in common or different among the various photon-based models of the
electron.Thanks.</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> By the way, I learned
that Martin Rivas who also has a Dirac related electron model is following me on
ResearchGate. John W. knows his work also. Rivas has a speed-of-light trajectory
of a helically circulating point charge in his electron model.</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">
Richard</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<div>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:5pt;MARGIN-TOP:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">On Mar 8, 2015, at 8:23 PM,
Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">John
and Martin,</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">
I have a few basic questions about your electron model that I don’t think are
answered in your paper. Short answers are OK, if possible. Longer answers or
explanations are welcome.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">My
first set of questions: What is the spin of the circulating photon with
toroidal topology in your model? Is it spin 1 hbar even though your electron
model has spin 1/2 hbar? If so, is this spin 1 hbar of your electron model’s
photon observable? If not, in what sense does this circulating photon have
spin 1 hbar?</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">
My second set of questions: Does the circulating photon with toroidal topology
move along a helical trajectory when the electron model has velocity v
perpendicular to the plane of its circulating photon’s closed circle
trajectory when at rest? If so, does the radius of this helical trajectory
continue to be hbar/2mc (the same as for your resting electron model) as the
electron model's speed increases, or does the radius of this helical
trajectory change with electron speed by some factor? Does the
circulating photon’s frequency of circulation increase in proportion to the
total energy E=gamma mc^2 of the electron? If so, does the circulating
photon's wavelength correspondingly decrease inversely proportional to
gamma? If not, how does the photon’s frequency depend on the electron
model’s velocity?</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">
with warm regards,</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">
Richard</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">
</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<div>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:5pt;MARGIN-TOP:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">On
Mar 7, 2015, at 4:43 AM, John Duffield <<a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>> wrote:</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:black">John:</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:black"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Not good. I’m afraid
there’s a lot more censorship around than people appreciate.<span> </span></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:black"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:black">By the way, <span> </span><a title="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Fiction-Phony-Particle-Physics/dp/1888820810/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1425732021&sr=1-1" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Fiction-Phony-Particle-Physics/dp/1888820810/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1425732021&sr=1-1" target="_blank">the phony side of particle physics</a><span> </span>was interesting reading.<span> </span></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:black"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Regards</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:black">John</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:black"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="BACKGROUND:whitesmoke"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">From:</span></b><span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black"> </span></span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black"><a title="John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">John
Williamson</a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="BACKGROUND:whitesmoke"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Sent:</span></b><span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black"> </span></span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Saturday,
March 07, 2015 6:06 AM</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="BACKGROUND:whitesmoke"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">To:</span></b><span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black"> </span></span><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></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="BACKGROUND:whitesmoke"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Subject:</span></b><span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black"> </span></span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Re:
[General] double-loop electron model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:black"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Hihi
.. look what I just got from arxiv ...</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">arXiv
Moderation [<a href="mailto:moderation@arxiv.org" target="_blank">moderation@arxiv.org</a>]</span></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;BORDER-TOP:windowtext 1pt solid;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;BORDER-RIGHT:windowtext 1pt solid;BORDER-BOTTOM:windowtext 1pt solid;COLOR:black;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-TOP:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;BORDER-LEFT:windowtext 1pt solid;PADDING-RIGHT:0in"><img alt="Image removed by sender." src="cid:E4983BA39C7F4D048F993DF35CB99074@HPlaptop" border="0" height="100" width="100"><img alt="Image removed by sender." src="cid:E4983BA39C7F4D048F993DF35CB99074@HPlaptop" border="0" height="100" width="100"><img alt="Image removed by sender." src="cid:E4983BA39C7F4D048F993DF35CB99074@HPlaptop" border="0" height="100" width="100"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Actions<span style="BORDER-TOP:windowtext 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:windowtext 1pt solid;BORDER-BOTTOM:windowtext 1pt solid;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-TOP:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;BORDER-LEFT:windowtext 1pt solid;PADDING-RIGHT:0in"><img alt="Image removed by sender." src="cid:E4983BA39C7F4D048F993DF35CB99074@HPlaptop" border="0" height="100" width="100"></span></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">To:</span></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black"> <span>John Williamson</span> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Friday,
March 06, 2015 7:24 PM</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Your
submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators, who
determined it inappropriate for arXiv. Our moderators suggest that you
please send your paper to a conventional journal instead. <span> </span><br><br>Please do not resubmit this
paper without contacting moderation for permission, and obtaining a positive
response. Resubmission of removed papers may result in suspension of
submission privileges.<br><br>For more information on our moderation
policies see:<br><br> <span> </span><a href="http://arxiv.org/help/moderation" target="_blank">http://arxiv.org/help/moderation</a><br><br>--<br>arXiv
moderation</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN:center" align="center"><span style="COLOR:black">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">From:</span></b><span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black"> </span></span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">General
[<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of John Williamson [<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Saturday, March 07, 2015 6:03
AM<br><b>To:</b><span> </span>Nature of
Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span> </span>Re: [General] double-loop electron
model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Good
for you Richard,<br><br>That is a very good starting point for discussion.
The reason Dirac did not model the electron as a charged object, however,
was that he was aware that this would produce problems for a light- speed
object, not that he missed something. Photons are not charged - this is (for
me) part of the essential difference between photons and electrons (the
other is the fermionic aspect). This needs to come out of a proper theory,
or model, not be put in a-priori. While I am proud of Martin and my old
model (in that it both derives charge and half-integral spin), it is by no
means the whole story two decades later. I think it is unproductive to argue
too much about what the old models do or do not mean. The electron is no
more, simply, a localised photon, than the photon is a pure overlap state of
a couple of electrons. We need to develop the new theory to explain both
photon and electron from first principles, deriving both charge and fermions
from bosons - and explaining why the basic fermions can carry charge,
whereas (the W's notwithstanding) wheres the rest-massless boson does not. I
do not think the W or the Z are "fundamental" either, but their properties
should (equally) emerge from the proper theory that Martin and I are working
on.<span> </span><br><br>Also the
statements of Hestenes and Rivas, are not "results" in the experimental
sense, but theoretical speculations. They cannot and must not be taken as
god given. I'm hoping to write a proper explanation of some of the seminal
experiments on the experimental point properties of the electron later this
weekend. I was lucky enough to have been the actual person who carried out
(two sets of the actual) seminal experiments on this decades ago. It is
about time I explained it properly with the references - and hope to
have a go at this within this discussion forum if I can muster the time or
energy to make a proper job of it.<br><br>Regards, John.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN:center" align="center"><span style="COLOR:black">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">From:</span></b><span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black"> </span></span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">General
[<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Richard Gauthier [<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Saturday, March 07, 2015 5:42
AM<br><b>To:</b><span> </span>Nature of
Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span> </span>Re: [General] double-loop electron
model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Hi John W., Martin, Andrew and
others,</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> I think that the
present company can mostly agree about one feature common to our various
electron models — they are composed in some way of a double-looping photon
of basic radius hbar/2mc, which is the Compton wavelength h/mc divided by
4pi . This is also the characteristic vibrational amplitude of the electron
found from the Dirac equation. So I think we’re on firm ground with our
electron models here (though we are a small group). But then differences are
seen when we discuss the nature and location of the electric charge of an
electron.</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> I think we
need to keep in mind that Dirac claimed, based on his equation and
successful experimental predictions from his equation, that the electron
travels at light speed, although he says its observable velocity is always
less that light speed. The same could apply to the electron’s charge.
Hestenes and Rivas in separate analyses of the Dirac equation found that the
electron can be modeled as a light speed electric charge moving in a helical
trajectory of radius hbar/2mc. The electron’s “center of charge” rotates
around its “center of mass” at light speed, claims Rivas. This is the
case even when the electron is at “rest” and the light-speed charge’s
helical path becomes a closed circular path. So John, when you say, as does
Martin similarly, that "</span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Speed
of light "charge" cannot happen, in this picture, precisely because of
this frame-bound (rest-massive) form”<span> </span></span><span style="COLOR:black">you seem to be going against these two Dirac-equation
related analyses which have the electron’s charge moving at light-speed even
in a resting electron. How do you explain this discrepency between your
electron model and these results?</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> Now Dirac did not
claim that the electron is a helically-circulating charged photon. Neither
did de Broglie. Both had the opportunity to do so, starting with de
Broglie's E=mc^2=hf for the stationary electron. In my opinion, if
either had, and had then derived the de Broglie wavelength from this charged
photon, this view would be commonly accepted as obvious today. But for some
reason there seems to have developed a collective “mental block” among
physicists, starting perhaps with de Broglie and persisting until today,
that the equation gamma mc^2=hf does NOT indicate that the moving electron
is a kind of photon, but rather that the electron is a material object with
a certain energy-related internal vibrational frequency which increases in
proportion to the total energy of the electron in a way that, due to a
“harmony of phases” leads to the de Broglie wavelength and the idea of
‘matter-waves’. Perhaps this collective mental block or dogmatic way of
thinking about electrons had its origin in Planck’s endowing his proposed
material oscillators in the walls of a blackbody’s cavity with energies
having integral multiples of hf. There is now also a kind of dogma that
photons have to have spin 1, so that the idea that the electron can be a
variety of photon with spin 1/2 is dismissed as impossible or inconceivable,
even laughable as a kind of logical contradiction, if it presents itself to
mind at all. All of this is understandable. New ideas in physics are not
easily accepted, and rightly so. Dogmas, especially when they may have
served some useful purpose in the past, die hard.</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> But I digress.
Whether the electron’s charge moves at sub-light speed or at light speed can
be a point of reasonable disagreement. But the various proposals that the
electron is a double-looping photon with its effective charge at the center
of the loop (Williamson and van der Mark), a double-looping light-speed
electric charge (Hestenes, Rivas) or a double-looping charged photon, all
perhaps can claim at least some rational support and could therefore form
the basis for a common presentation about the nature of the electron in
relation to the photon.</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> with
best regards,</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">
Richard</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:5pt;MARGIN-TOP:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">On Mar 6, 2015, at 12:26 AM,
John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>>
wrote:</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Agreed
Andrew,<br><br>We need to realise that we are all "ignorant" in certain
respects - and indeed that "science" is also , presently, completely
ignorant in certain respects. We need to break this cycle of ignorance. We
need the picture to make sense in science as a whole. If we (I hope!) come
up with a complete picture, it must be right everywhere and only
just right - explaining, amongst other things- both the nature of and
reason for quantisation and the nature of charge.<br><br>In the paper I
aim to present I hope to argue that one can start from an underlying
picture of continuous fields, show how and why these must be quantised and
then use that quantised (E=hf) object to show why and how the (quantised)
electron charge arises. In that sense I would say that I then "know" what
charge is - in terms of the deeper set of principles used to describe it
in terms of that theory. Others may say that, within QED charge is
that thing which emits and absorbs photons, the carriers of the
electromagnetic force and may claim, therefore to "understand" what charge
is. In my view, there is a big difference between putting charge in
a-priori and understanding what it is. Likewise, in the Maxwell equations
the "charge" is understood simply as the electric field divergence. This
then begs the question of the nature of the charge. The fact that it is
defined here as a divergence means that it must have a form related to a
particular frame - just as Martin says. Speed of light "charge" cannot
happen, in this picture, precisely because of this frame-bound
(rest-massive) form.<span> </span><br><br>In our 1997 paper, we put
in (a subset of) the experimental properties of the (uncharged) photon and
got out an estimate of the charge. We demanded a set of non-crossing,
precisely lightspeed, paths. It was these starting points that led
to the properties we derived. The charge arose in this model because the
oscillating (a.c) photon field was re-configured to give a (d.c.) radial
component. That re-configuration (a knotting) required an equal and
opposite re-configuration an (antiknot) to give a detailed, smooth
transition from cartesian (corkscrew -zero divergence) to toroidal
(positive and negative radial) co-ordinates. The half integral spin to
what John D calls the Dirac belt trick. The anomalous magnetic moment
calculation to a rigorous demand that all paths have the same phase
length, and be precisely lightspeed. That article is history though. Still
good, I think, in terms of its starting postulates, but we need to move on
to a deeper theory that gives BOTH electron AND photon solutions from an
underlying theory.<br><br>As we talk about this I see many holes and
fallacies in what others are saying, I'm expecting (and hoping!), to be
challenged on my own areas of ignorance. This is best done on proper,
carefully argued papers, not loose emails with half-understood starting
points derived from other authority.<br><br>It is through interaction and
proper discussion that ignorance can be resolved.<span> </span><br><br>Regards,
John.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN:center" align="center"><span style="COLOR:black">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">From:</span></b><span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black"> </span></span><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">General
[<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Friday, March 06, 2015 7:19
AM<br><b>To:</b><span> </span>Nature of
Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew
Meulenberg<br><b>Cc:</b><span> </span>P.G.
Vaidya<br><b>Subject:</b><span> </span>Re: [General] double-loop
electron model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><span style="COLOR:black">Dear Richard,</span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><span style="COLOR:black">While I agree with Martin, I think that we will need
to discuss the issue in person to iron out the pros & cons. I am
presenting a paper at the conference on the fields & potentials of an
optical standing wave. It will describe the differences between photonic
'charge' within the photon and point charges. I will probably be using
your paper as one of the several references that talk of charge within a
photon.</span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><span style="COLOR:black">When we all have had time to read each others' papers
(hopefully before gathering at the conference), then we will be better
able to understand our respective positions and integrate the information
into a coherent, self-consistent, mutually acceptable, whole. I would like
the actual presentations from the multiple sources to present a complete
picture, not the repetitive fragments with the contradictions that
presently exist..</span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Andrew</span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><span style="COLOR:black">On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Richard
Gauthier<span> </span><<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>><span> </span>wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote style="BORDER-TOP:medium none;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-TOP:0in;PADDING-LEFT:6pt;MARGIN:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt;BORDER-LEFT:#cccccc 1pt solid;PADDING-RIGHT:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Hello Martin,<span> </span></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> Thank
you for your thoughtful comments and questions. You are right that any
complete model of the electron would include the origin of electric
charge. No one currently understands the nature and origin of electric
charge—that’s why there are various models of the electron. To say that
electric charge originates with electric fields that have a non-zero
divergence is to imply that we understand the origin of electromagnetic
fields, which are supposed to be generated by accelerated electric
charges! A full circle of deep ignorance as the the nature of either. It
seems clear to me that both electric charge and electromagnetic fields
originate from something more primary and more fundamental than either.
I call this more fundamental entity an energy quantum. It generates both
electric charge and electromagnetic fields, as well as other physical
properties of quantized particles. Its chief characteristic is its
energy which is proportional to its frequency: E=hf. It takes on other
properties such as the speed of light, wavelength, momentum, spin,
magnetic moment, flavor, color charge etc depending on what physical
particle such as the photon, electron, gluon, quark etc that it
expresses itself as. The energy quantum expresses non-locally through
the various particles that it manifests as such as the photon or the
electron.</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> So I
don’t think that the electric charge has to be point-like. I do think
that the energy quantum, which is not inherently charged, is likely to
be point-like. It generates the electron which has all the electron's
enigmatic properties. I think that if the energy quantum was better
understood as a hypothetical fundamental entity, the quantum properties
of the so-called fundamental particles would become less enigmatic. So
the electron may be a charged photon, but a photon is an energy quantum
expressing as an uncharged photon or as a charged photon (electron). In
your and John's model of the electron, electric charge must travel at
less than the speed of light, but in my model of the electron as a
charged photon, electric charge can travel at light speed and perhaps
faster. Neither of our models is proved to the extent that either of
them can claim factually that electric charge can or cannot travel at
the speed of light or even faster than light. That’s for experiment to
decide. But we can ask how our models can lead to a deeper understanding
of matter and energy.</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">
with best regards,</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">
Richard</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> <span> </span></span></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:5pt;MARGIN-TOP:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">On Mar 4, 2015, at 8:01
AM, Mark, Martin van der <<a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>>
wrote:</span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Oh
Richard, maybe the main thing is:</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Why
put charge in your model to begin with? Wouldn’t it be nice to have it
as a consequence? The charge itself is the whole problem to begin
with…</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">The
motivation just puzzles me….</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Cheers,
Martin</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy" lang="DE">Dr.
Martin B. van der Mark</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy">Philips
Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy">Prof.
Holstlaan 4</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy">Tel:
+31 40 2747548</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-TOP:3pt;PADDING-LEFT:0in;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-RIGHT:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">From:</span></b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">
General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark, Martin van der<br><b>Sent:</b> woensdag 4
maart 2015 16:56<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double-loop electron model
discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Hi
Richard, thank you,</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Firstly,
There are 3 intimately related problems. With the self-energy problem
comes the 4/3 problem and that of the Poincare stresses. See chapter
28 VOL II of the Feynman Lectures. Neither has to do with the electron
being a point. (go back and make sure you read that previous
sentence well) When the electron is taken to be smaller than half the
classical radius, it is already the end of physics, because
there is more energy in the electric field outside than there is mass
to begin with. </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Secondly,
a charged object whatever you call it and whatever its size cannot go
at light velocity. It may approach it, but not reach it. Charge means
a special configuration of field, of the sort that has a non-zero
divergence, field sticks out in all directions. These things, really
inescapably, MUST have a so-called “rest” mass, if only from the point
of view of what radiation is about: the transverse part, and what
virtual photons, longitudinal polarization or near-field optics are
about: mass given by their decay length.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">I
hope this is clear enough. “Charged photon” is a crippled name, it
suggest a contradiction that I believe (I can be quite wrong, but now
you know where it comes from) is also part of the whole concept
described and in my opinion cannot be married with physics as it
stands or with physics as it (perhaps) will appear to be.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Very
best, Martin</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy" lang="DE">Dr.
Martin B. van der Mark</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy">Philips
Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy">Prof.
Holstlaan 4</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy">Tel:
+31 40 2747548</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-TOP:3pt;PADDING-LEFT:0in;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-RIGHT:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">From:</span></b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">
General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> woensdag 4 maart
2015 16:19<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double-loop electron model
discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Martin,</span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> I agree.
The electron’s quantum existence has a unity that must be preserved in
any electron model, although I would like to hear why this must be in
your opinion.</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> The charged
photon model of the electron does not require that the charge of the
charged photon (i.e. the electron) is a point charge. What we know
about the electron is that when it is detected it displays point-like
behavior, so at that time the charge as well as the location of the
detected electron is point-like (or at least confined within the
particular region of detection of the electron.) The same goes for a
photon. We cannot say that the photon is point-like when it is
traveling undetected through a double slit apparatus, which an
electron can do also. As the electron/charged photon goes through the
double slits, its charge goes through the double slits also, as does
its spin and magnetic moment (or at least the electron's potential for
re-expressing all of these properties when it is later detected after
passing wavelike through both slits.) The photon is only point-like
when it is detected. So the electron and the photon are very similar
in this respect, both showing wave-particle duality. I’m claiming that
this wave-particle duality property (or Feynman's sum-over-histories
property if you don’t like wave-particle duality) of a photon and an
electron is essentially the same because the electron is a charged
photon and has the properties of a photon like wave-particle duality,
interference, diffraction, and entanglement. But I also claim that the
term “matter-waves” is less meaningful for an electron if an electron
is a charged photon and is not really “matter” at all, unless an
uncharged photon is also “matter”. In this view, the term “matter” and
“material” are not really relevant to the physicist except as various
expressions of energy, if matter is really light or other luminous
objects like gluons of various frequencies, conformations, and levels
of confinement.</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> The charged
photon model only requires that the charged photon have the quantum
and wave properties of the photon given by E=hf , p=h/lambda and
c=lambda f , which by the way are present in your photon with toroidal
topology as I understand it. The charged photon carries the charge -e
for an electron and +e for the charged photon which is a positron. The
light-speed of the electron (which I call a charged photon) is
currently unobserved (as Dirac remarked) but this doesn’t mean that
this light speed is not part of the electron/charged photon model,
since the charged photon model of the electron generates the de
Broglie wavelength which IS observed and is based on a) a
helically circulating light-speed charged photon, b) the increasing
frequency of the light-speed charged photon with increasing electron
total energy, and c) the corresponding decrease of wavelength of the
light-speed charged photon with increasing electron total energy.
Since your toroidal electron model has these photon properties, it
will also generate the de Broglie wavelength as does the charged
photon model when your electron model has a velocity in the direction
perpendicular to the plane of its helical axis. So your electron model
will generate the de Broglie wavelength in 2 ways — the way you
describe in your and John’s article and in this way as
well.</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> So I am not
attached to the electron as charged photon model as having a
point-like electric charge just as I am not attached to an uncharged
photon model being point-like. The supposed point-like charge of an
electron as leading to unwanted infinities has been a headache to
physicists for a long time. Perhaps a new approach is
needed.</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> <span> </span></span></p></div>
<div>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:5pt;MARGIN-TOP:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">On Mar 3, 2015, at
3:24 PM, Mark, Martin van der <<a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a>>
wrote:</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div><pre style="WORD-WRAP:break-word;WORD-SPACING:0px"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Hi Chip, clearly what John and I have written is too compact to give a full explanation and it should not have been a surprise to me that the subtleties do not always immediately sink in with the reader. </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Perhaps there will be time in at the conference to sit together and discuss the physics, like why, on firm experimental grounds, it absolutely imposible that the electron consists of two parts. It is a very puzzling one, and why the narrowest possible escape may be just, and only just, sufficient: that it is a single quantum of electromagnetic field with a non trivial topplogy. And why any extra property put in from the beginning will destroy the whole concept. Emerging properties should be: charge, spin, magnetic moment, de broglie wavelength, Pauli principle, etc. </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Really the only thing i do not have too much of a clue about is the mass scale...our model is at least not by itself capable of explaing it. This is one of the things a real theory should provide!</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Cheers, Martin</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black"> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black"> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Op 3 mrt. 2015 om 18:30 heeft "Chip Akins" <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> het volgende geschreven:</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Hi Martin</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> I have read your 1997 paper many times and continue to refer to it during research.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Rereading the Feynman Lectures II chapter 28 now.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> I am fairly certain that my model, derived in part from yours, handles these issues similarly, but adds some specifics for the electron you may be interested in. If you have not read it please give it a look.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Chip</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:23 AM</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Hi Chip,</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> John and I have dealt with it in our model. However, we can only be sure if we can also develop a complete theory: a model is just and only a toy. A very important toy to guide our thinking and to help us taking all aspects on board.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> In our 1997 paper, we dealt with just about everything, except for:</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> · The Pauli principle (interference at same Compton frequency)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> · The weak interaction (linked field lines)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> · The strong interaction (knotted flow)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Although after all these years I still feel that our model is very adequate, perhaps the most important of our 1997 paper is that it explains the problems related to certain properties of the electron.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> So read the paper and you will know a lot more about the physics involved. And do read Chapter 28 VOL II of Feynman.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Good luck,</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Martin</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Dr. Martin B. van der Mark</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Prof. Holstlaan 4</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Tel: +31 40 2747548</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Sent: dinsdag 3 maart 2015 18:05</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Hi Martin</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Thank you for the comments.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> In your opinion does the model you and John W. created for the electron (1997) satisfy this self-energy problem you mention?</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> I have read the Feynman lectures, but it has been a while, so time for a review.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Infinities are quite distasteful, and an electron has spin and a magnetic moment, so it can be argued that the electron cannot actually be a point, even if it does react at a single point.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Thoughts?</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Chip</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:40 AM</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Hi Chip, Richard and Andrew,</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> 1) Ever read chapter 28 of Vol. II of the Feynman Lectures?</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> It is about the energy in the field of a charged object, like a football that has been rubbed against a cat (as physicists do).</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> That energy goes to infinity at smaller and smaller radius. This leads to the self-energy problem for a small particle. (The invention of charged photons doesn’t seem to do this any good)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> 2) The interaction of an electron is point-like, it means that it consists of a single thing, not two massive parts bound by a force (because that would vibrate at some energy)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Any electron model must be able to make plausible why this is.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Some thinking to do for you perhaps…</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Best, Martin</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Dr. Martin B. van der Mark</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Prof. Holstlaan 4</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Tel: +31 40 2747548</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Sent: dinsdag 3 maart 2015 17:10</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Hi Richard and Andrew</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Andrew, I have been looking at the annihilation reaction of the electron and positron and considering that the result yields two photons of the energy 0.511MeV. Then assuming the electron and positron are each made of one photon.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> So far, possibly due to my assumptions regarding the nature of a photon, I have not been able to logically justify splitting the positive and negative “portions’ of a single photon to create these two oppositely charged particles. To me the positive and negative portions of the photon are really made of the same thing, in that they are simply one field vector pointing toward the positive. The positive and negative ends being part of the same spacetime distortion.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> I have attached an updated draft of the electron as a confined photon.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Chip</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:08 AM</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Hi Andrew,</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> That’s a very interesting view that a wormhole connection between a created electron-positron pair could resolve the EPR paradox. I think that you would need to show that the same wormhole explanation would resolve the EPR paradox with other particles that are quantum mechanically entangled. You would also need to show that the appropriate quantum communication between two particles could pass between their connecting wormhole to keep them entangled.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> There are other sub-quantum hypotheses I suppose about how a photon interacting with another photon or an atomic nucleus can create an electron pair. Have you studied them and eliminated them as possible contenders?</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> On Mar 2, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mules333@gmail.com</span></a><<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:mules333@gmail.com</span></a>>> wrote:</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Dear Richard, Chip, et al.,</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> I thought for a long time about the electron as a self-bound photon, before I realized that I could only make progress when I considered the electron/positron pair as that photon. So, instead of a free photon (a soliton) we must consider 2 self-bound solitons, that can be separated. It was the paraphrased statement(s) from a molecular biologist (who read more physics than I did) that started me on the right path. "Mass and charge are only produced when (& as) the soliton pair are separated." This became the basis of a paper that AJP rejected in 9 minutes from its electronic receipt. However, with that identity of mass and charge in mind and with the recognition of total internal reflection (TIR) as a means of binding light in a "whispering-Gallery" mode, it became clear that the transverse electric field of a bound photon could be 'rectified' by the Goos–Hänchen or Imbert–Fedorov effect<<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect</span></a>> of a photon and give the net charge of an electron. This happens at a unique frequency and orbit size where the negative phase shift exactly equals the phase advance of the photon and the electric field can always point out. If the phase is not correct, then the distortion of space (which affects the refractive index of the path and thus the curvature of the photon) is not resonant. However, this difference in curvature, balanced against the phase shift gives a stable configuration.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> That was the easy part. Nevertheless, I have not yet actually done the full calculations. Someone of the group, with more mathematical ability than I, could do so and coauthor my paper.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> My present conjecture: What happens to the field confined inside the bound-photon 'orbit'? It is so greatly concentrated by the path curvature that it becomes 'singular' at the center. Nature 'abhors a singularity' even more than it abhors a vacuum! The extreme energy density distorts space and forms a 'connection' between the forming electron and positron. I believe that the distortion is a wormhole and the connection is thru time. Just as the external field lines of a bar magnet are 'closed' thru the bar, I believe that the electric field lines of an electron/positron (the lepton) pair in space, also form and are closed thru time via the wormhole. The lepton pair remains connected (entangled) by this internal structure until the wormhole 'distributes' among all of the neighboring charges. [I don't believe that the wormhole collapses until a pair annihilates.] Since time does not exist within a wormhole, this resolves the EPR paradox.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> In response to Richard's intent "I would like to start a thread that focuses on comparing and contrasting the various double-loop electron models ... to find any common areas of agreement, and any points of difference."</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> My original double-loop model assumed that every wavelength is divided in 1/2 and then recombined (nearly superposed). It required a different type of phase shift than normally assumed and was nicely represented by the mobius strip with a 1/2 twist per 1/2 cycle (a full rotation for every wavelength).</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> My present concept, using the Goos–Hänchen or Imbert–Fedorov effect, does not require a relationship between a 'twist' and the photon wavelength, since the path curvature provides the necessary phase shift to keep the fields constant. These options must still be confirmed.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Thus, I have two models with different mobius twist factors. One with a 1/2 twist per 1/2 cycle, and one with no twist at all. I believe that both models would allow the electron to be the lowest level and this structure could have higher levels such as the muon. (However, I don't think that they can be considered excited states.)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Andrew</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> _____________________________</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a><<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>>> wrote:</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Hi Richard</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> One of the items which intrigued me while studying electron models, was the notion that charge was topologically generated by the spin of the electron. We only find charge in spin 1/2 particles. Looking at U(1) and SU(2) and the Yang-Mills "phase force" idea, led me to be even more convinced.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> As it turns out, it seems the photon is capable of generating charge topologically, when confined. Of course the simplest method to express that confinement is a monochromatic circular plane wave, certain toroidal models may also work, as long as the negative end of the E field is exposed to the outside.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Another attraction in starting with the plane circular model, is the relative ease of analyzing wave interference. It happens that wave interference is very important, because the result is that the effective electrical and magnetic radius is then slightly larger than the transport radius, providing the exact values for the magnetic moment (with anomaly), and the exact electric charge. Wave interference occurs near the center of the model, making the E field less efficient near the center, and thereby shifting the effective E field radius, and therefore the effective magnetic radius, outwards, while not affecting the transport radius.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> With these values (magnetic moment and charge) defined so accurately in the model, it is still a little puzzling that my models wave interference predicts a value for the fine structure, internal to the electron, of 0.007285993718303 when the actual value (CODATA) is 0.0072973525698. The difference is 0.1557% but I still feel it is significant, and want to know why the difference is there. Maybe I am calculating the interference incorrectly or incompletely. Or maybe there is another contribution to the fine structure which I have missed. While writing this I may have discovered where my error is. I kept telling myself that the fields actually extend far beyond the effective RMS radius but falling off in intensity, and I accounted for that in part of the wave interference calculations, but not all of the interference was calculated, because I failed to see its tiny contribution before now.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Another aspect of my model which is unique and not incorporated in any other model we have seen is the relative phase of the electrical and magnetic components of the wave. This aspect becomes important when understanding how the photon is confined.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> The electron exhibits many clues to its nature. From this model we can calculate the exact known value for the Quantum Hall effect, by simply running some standard electrical engineering formula using the "voltage", "current", and frequency. This indicates also that an electrical engineering analysis may provide other valuable information. Using a similar approach we can understand that the electron will display a particular phase relationship between E and M components. In a simple EM resonant system the E and M components are shifted 90 degrees at resonance. If we start with a 90 degree phase shift and look at the double loop configuration of the wave we see an apparent 180 degree phase shift in the confined E and M components, placing them on opposite sides of the electron radius at any given instant. Then it is much easier to see that with the E and M fields on opposite sides, and the attraction between these fields, the issue of photon confinement is simplified somewhat.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> We still have a ways to go, getting answers to many of the remaining questions. But so far it seems like the group has uncovered some important new understanding which may lead us to a clearer, causal, view of physics, and provide a new basis which can describe experiment more fully and accurately.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Chip</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> -----Original Message-----</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> From: General [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank">general-bounces+chipakins</a><<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins</span></a>>=<a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><<a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>>] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:47 PM</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Hi Chip,</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Thank you for your thoughtful as well as personal history comments about your interest in modeling the electron. My own interest in the structure and composition of the electron dates back to the late 1980’s. My spiritual guru gave some new ideas in 1986 about how matter might be formed by a kind of life principle transmitted through subtle vibrating life-energy entities that have both a mental and a physical portion. That idea intrigued me and soon I tried to apply the idea to make a model of a photon as being composed of millions of these oscillating life-particles. I had mainly my intuition to guide me. My photon model soon contained a single circulating energy entity (a superluminal energy quantum) traveling helically at a 45 degree angle with the speed c sqrt(2) and a total momentum along a helical trajectory of (h/lambda) sqrt(2). The energy quantum's helical radius is the photon’s wavelength lambda divided by 2 pi. This result came out of the requirement that the photon model should have its experimental value of spin hbar (or minus hbar) generated by the transverse component of the superluminal energy quantum's total momentum along its helical trajectory, while having the transluminal energy quantum’s longitudinal component of momentum be the photon's linear momentum p=h/lambda.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> I then modeled the electron as a closed charged photon-like object. I knew very little about the Dirac equation except its prediction of antimatter and that the electron has a 4pi rotational symmetry. I also found that a single closed-loop of one wavelength of a photon (the Compton wavelength h/mc) with the electron’s rest energy mc^2 yields a spin of 1 hbar — twice the value of the electron’s spin. It hit me that making a double-loop of a single wavelength photon produces an electron model with a spin of 1/2 hbar.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> While making my electron model I realized that it should also have the electron’s magnetic moment M — approximately the magnitude of the Bohr magneton (e hbar)/2m. I set the electron model to have the Bohr magneton for its magnetic moment by adjusting the radius of the closed helical path of the helically moving charged superluminal energy quantum so that its helically circulating charge generates the Dirac equation electron's Bohr magneton for the electron model. (Choosing a slightly larger helical radius generates the electron’s exact experimental value of magnetic moment which is a little larger than the Bohr magneton’s magnitude.)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Later I started analyzing other people’s cyclical models of the electron more closely. I found that Dirac had claimed that electrons actually move at the speed of light, but that only a sub-luminal speed can be observed. I found two analyses of the Dirac equation that suggested that the path of a moving electron’s charge can be described as light-speed along an open helix. This gave me the idea to fit my model of the circulating charged photon for a resting electron to this light-speed helical approach. I realized that the circulating photon in the electron model would have an increased frequency f corresponding to its increased total energy gamma mc^2 when the electron moves forward, and that the corresponding wavelength of this circulating charged photon would decrease with this increasing frequency, in order to keep the speed of light of the circulating charged photon constant. The radius of the charged photon’s helix was found to decrease with increasing electron velocity by the factor gamma^2 in order for the photon’s wavelength to decrease as described as the frequency of the charged photon increases with increasing electron speed and total energy. All the math worked out nicely, including the generation of the electron’s spin 1/2 hbar for a slow moving electron from the tangential component mc of the charged photon’s total momentum gamma mc along its helical axis, multiplied by the radius hbar/2mc of the charged photon’s helical axis for a slow moving electron. And I realized that any speed-of-light double-looping photon model for an electron should also follow a corresponding helical path whose radius decreases in the same way with the electron’s increase speed. This is because the result only depends on the relations E=hf, p=h/lambda , and c= lambda f , the basic quantum energy and momentum equations for a photon and the equation for wave motion with speed c.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Although I knew that any acceptable electron model would have to generate the relativistic de Broglie wavelength Ldb = h/(gamma mv) , I was quite surprised that this result falls out so easily from the circulating charged photon model of a moving electron, where the longitudinal component of the circulating charged photon’s wave vector k yields the wave number that corresponds to the relativistic de Broglie wavelength. Furthermore, this simple result for the origin of the electron’s de Broglie wavelength suggests that the quantum wave functions for a moving electron, which depend heavily on the electron's de Broglie wavelength, are produced mathematically from the waves generated by the circulating charged photon that models the electron.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Richard</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:47 AM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a><<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>>> wrote:</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> Hi Richard and ALL</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> You asked for a comparison of electron models.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> Since 1986, while having lunch with a mathematician, Eric Peterson, I have felt that the electron was made up of EM waves, or a photon.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> Several of us have come to the same conclusion.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> When I saw your model from 2005 many things started to make sense. That is why I was so excited and interested to fully pursue the math to try to deeply understand your TEQ model. It was quite informative and inspiring to see your work.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> Since that time, principally due to an Occam's razor argument, I have returned to the view that TEQ's are not required to model the electron. While I still feel that it may be possible that TEQ's exist, I do not find, in my view, that it is required for the modeling of the photon and electron.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> When I later saw John W and Martin's work from 1997 I was again very interested, principally because they were saying the same thing I was thinking, in general.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> While running the math and testing the model from John W and Martin, it occurred to me that we had to have some sort of photon model to build the electron from. So I produced the simplest model I could imagine which would fulfill what I felt then was the basic criteria. My view of the basic criteria has since changed due to this collaboration, so I am working now to update my electron model. However it seems most of the electron model remains intact.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> The fundamental differences between my model and John W. and Martin's model are as follows:</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> I found that wave interference may be precisely the cause for the exact value of the magnetic moment anomaly, and the cause for the exact value for the elementary charge.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> That wave interference, incidentally, produces a new view of the fine structure constant in the electron.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> My motivation, in part, to do this work, was because we have to provide an electron model which is simple in comparison, and competes with current theory and models in accuracy, before such a model will be considered a viable alternative.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> My model currently falls short of some of the goals that I feel we will need, in order for our work to be considered noteworthy and to be eventually accepted.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> My model also demonstrates the cause for inertial mass, but I think John W. and Martin's model may illustrate the same property. And in fact, all confined photon models may show the same attribute of inertial mass.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> There are implications of the work we are doing which we also need to discuss. If Matter is made from light, when you think about its implications on relativity, leads to the existence of a preferred reference rest frame in space, leading us toward Chandra's view and CTF.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> Working with all of you is both enlightening and inspiring.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> Chip</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> -----Original Message-----</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> From: General</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank">general-bounces+chipakins</a><<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins</span></a>>=<a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandpart" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandpart</span></a><<a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandpart" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandpart</span></a>></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> <a href="http://icles.org/" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">icles.org</span></a><<a href="http://icles.org/" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://icles.org/</span></a>>] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:10 PM</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> Subject: [General] double-loop electron model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> I would like to start a thread that focuses on comparing and contrasting the various double-loop electron models, mainly John and Martin’s (J/M's), Chip’s, Vivian's and mine, and any others that people may know of, to find any common areas of agreement, and any points of difference. I think we are all agreed that the resting electron in our various models has spin 1/2 hbar. Chip’s model is based on J/M's model. I’d like to ask Chip, if I might, what commonalities and differences exist between J/M’s electron model and Chip's electron model. We can go on from there, if that’s agreeable.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> Richard</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> _______________________________________________</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a><<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> <a</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n</span></a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> <a href="http://atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfir" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfir</span></a><<a href="http://atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfir" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfir</span></a>></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> m=1"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> Click here to unsubscribe</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> _______________________________________________</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a>></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> <a</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n</span></a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> <a href="http://atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubcon" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubcon</span></a><<a href="http://atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubcon" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubcon</span></a>></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> firm=1"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> Click here to unsubscribe</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">>> </a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> _______________________________________________</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a><<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> <a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Click here to unsubscribe</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> _______________________________________________</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> 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" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mules333@gmail.com</span></a><<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:mules333@gmail.com</span></a>></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> <a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Click here to unsubscribe</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> _______________________________________________</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a>></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> <a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Click here to unsubscribe</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> ________________________________</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> 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"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> <The Electron as a Confined Photon CA.pdf></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> _______________________________________________</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> <a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> Click here to unsubscribe</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre><pre><span style="FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">> </a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></pre>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Hi
Martin</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">I have read your 1997
paper many times and continue to refer to it during
research.</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Rereading the Feynman
Lectures II chapter 28 now.</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">I am fairly certain
that my model, derived in part from yours, handles these issues
similarly, but adds some specifics for the electron you may be
interested in. If you have not read it please give it a
look.</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Chip</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-TOP:#e1e1e1 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-TOP:3pt;PADDING-LEFT:0in;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-RIGHT:0in">
<div>
<div>
<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"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark, Martin van der<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday,
March 03, 2015 11:23 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles
- General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double-loop
electron model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Hi
Chip,</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">John
and I have dealt with it in our model. However, we can only be sure
if we can also develop a complete theory: a model is just and only a
toy. A very important toy to guide our thinking and to help us
taking all aspects on board.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">In
our 1997 paper, we dealt with just about everything, except
for:</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div style="MARGIN-LEFT:0.5in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:symbol;COLOR:#1f497d">·</span><span style="FONT-SIZE:7pt;COLOR:#1f497d">
<span> </span> </span><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">The
Pauli principle (interference at same Compton frequency)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div style="MARGIN-LEFT:0.5in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:symbol;COLOR:#1f497d">·</span><span style="FONT-SIZE:7pt;COLOR:#1f497d">
<span> </span> </span><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">The
weak interaction (linked field lines)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div style="MARGIN-LEFT:0.5in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:symbol;COLOR:#1f497d">·</span><span style="FONT-SIZE:7pt;COLOR:#1f497d">
<span> </span> </span><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">The
strong interaction (knotted flow)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Although
after all these years I still feel that our model is very adequate,
perhaps the most important of our 1997 paper is that it explains the
problems related to certain properties of the electron.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">So
read the paper and you will know a lot more about the physics
involved. And do read Chapter 28 VOL II of Feynman.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Good
luck,</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Martin</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy" lang="DE">Dr.
Martin B. van der Mark</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy">Philips
Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy">Prof.
Holstlaan 4</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy">Tel:
+31 40 2747548</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-TOP:3pt;PADDING-LEFT:0in;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-RIGHT:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">From:</span></b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">
General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br><b>Sent:</b> dinsdag 3 maart 2015
18:05<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double-loop electron
model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Hi
Martin</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Thank you for the
comments.</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">In your opinion does
the model you and John W. created for the electron (1997) satisfy
this self-energy problem you mention?</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">I have read the
Feynman lectures, but it has been a while, so time for a
review.</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Infinities are quite
distasteful, and an electron has spin and a magnetic moment, so it
can be argued that the electron cannot actually be a point, even if
it does react at a single point.</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Thoughts?</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Chip</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-TOP:#e1e1e1 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-TOP:3pt;PADDING-LEFT:0in;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-RIGHT:0in">
<div>
<div>
<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"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark, Martin van der<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday,
March 03, 2015 10:40 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles
- General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double-loop
electron model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Hi
Chip, Richard and Andrew,</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div style="MARGIN-LEFT:0.5in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">1)</span><span style="FONT-SIZE:7pt;COLOR:#1f497d"> <span> </span> </span><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Ever
read chapter 28 of Vol. II of the Feynman Lectures?</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-INDENT:0.5in"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">It
is about the energy in the field of a charged object, like a
football that has been rubbed against a cat (as physicists
do).</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-INDENT:0.5in"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">That
energy goes to infinity at smaller and smaller radius. This leads to
the self-energy problem for a small particle. (The invention of
charged photons doesn’t seem to do this any good)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div style="MARGIN-LEFT:0.5in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">2)</span><span style="FONT-SIZE:7pt;COLOR:#1f497d"> <span> </span> </span><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">The
interaction of an electron is point-like, it means that it consists
of a single thing, not two massive parts bound by a force (because
that would vibrate at some energy)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Any
electron model must be able to make plausible why this
is.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Some
thinking to do for you perhaps…</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri",sans-serif;COLOR:#1f497d">Best,
Martin</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy">Philips
Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy">Prof.
Holstlaan 4</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Arial",sans-serif;COLOR:navy">Tel:
+31 40 2747548</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-TOP:3pt;PADDING-LEFT:0in;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-RIGHT:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">From:</span></b><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Tahoma",sans-serif;COLOR:black">
General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br><b>Sent:</b> dinsdag 3 maart 2015
17:10<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double-loop electron
model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Hi Richard and
Andrew</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Andrew, I have been
looking at the annihilation reaction of the electron and positron
and considering that the result yields two photons of the energy
0.511MeV. Then assuming the electron and positron are each made of
one photon.</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">So far, possibly due
to my assumptions regarding the nature of a photon, I have not been
able to logically justify splitting the positive and negative
“portions’ of a single photon to create these two oppositely charged
particles. To me the positive and negative portions of the photon
are really made of the same thing, in that they are simply one field
vector pointing toward the positive. The positive and negative ends
being part of the same spacetime distortion.</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">I have attached an
updated draft of <u>the electron as a confined
photon</u>.</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Chip</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-TOP:#e1e1e1 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-TOP:3pt;PADDING-LEFT:0in;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-RIGHT:0in">
<div>
<div>
<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"><span style="COLOR:purple">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March
03, 2015 9:08 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double-loop
electron model discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">Hi
Andrew,</span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"> That’s a
very interesting view that a wormhole connection between a created
electron-positron pair could resolve the EPR paradox. I think that
you would need to show that the same wormhole explanation would
resolve the EPR paradox with other particles that are quantum
mechanically entangled. You would also need to show that the
appropriate quantum communication between two particles could pass
between their connecting wormhole to keep them
entangled.</span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">
There are other sub-quantum hypotheses I suppose about how a photon
interacting with another photon or an atomic nucleus can create an
electron pair. Have you studied them and eliminated them as possible
contenders?</span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:5pt;MARGIN-TOP:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black">On Mar 2, 2015, at
7:59 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mules333@gmail.com</span></a>>
wrote:</span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Dear
Richard, Chip, et al.,</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">I
thought for a long time about the electron as a self-bound photon,
before I realized that I could only make progress when I
considered the electron/positron pair as that photon. So, instead
of a free photon (a soliton) we must consider 2 self-bound
solitons, that can be separated. It was the paraphrased
statement(s) from a molecular biologist (who read more physics
than I did) that started me on the right path. "Mass and charge
are only produced when (& as) the soliton pair are separated."
This became the basis of a paper that AJP rejected in 9 minutes
from its electronic receipt. However, with that identity of mass
and charge in mind and with the recognition of total internal
reflection (TIR) as a means of binding light in a
"whispering-Gallery" mode, it became clear that the transverse
electric field of a bound photon could be 'rectified' by the
Goos–Hänchen or <a title="Imbert–Fedorov effect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">Imbert–Fedorov
effect</span></a> of a photon and give the net charge of an
electron. This happens at a unique frequency and orbit size where
the negative phase shift exactly equals the phase advance of the
photon and the electric field can always point out. If the phase
is not correct, then the distortion of space (which affects the
refractive index of the path and thus the curvature of the photon)
is not resonant. However, this difference in curvature, balanced
against the phase shift gives a stable configuration.<br><br>That
was the easy part. Nevertheless, I have not yet actually done the
full calculations. Someone of the group, with more mathematical
ability than I, could do so and coauthor my paper.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">My
present conjecture</span></b><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">:
What happens to the field confined inside the bound-photon
'orbit'? It is so greatly concentrated by the path curvature that
it becomes 'singular' at the center. Nature 'abhors a singularity'
even more than it abhors a vacuum! The extreme energy density
distorts space and forms a 'connection' between the forming
electron and positron. I believe that the distortion is a wormhole
and the connection is thru time. Just as the external field lines
of a bar magnet are 'closed' thru the bar, I believe that the
electric field lines of an electron/positron (the lepton) pair in
space, also form and are closed thru time via the wormhole. The
lepton pair remains connected (entangled) by this internal
structure until the wormhole 'distributes' among all of the
neighboring charges. [I don't believe that the wormhole collapses
until a pair annihilates.] Since time does not exist within a
wormhole, this resolves the EPR paradox.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">In
response to Richard's intent <i>"I would like to start a thread
that focuses on comparing and contrasting the various double-loop
electron models ... to find any common areas of agreement, and any
points of difference."</i></span></b><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">My
original double-loop model assumed that every wavelength is
divided in 1/2 and then recombined (nearly superposed). It
required a different type of phase shift than normally assumed and
was nicely represented by the mobius strip with a 1/2 twist per
1/2 cycle (a full rotation for every wavelength).</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">My
present concept, using the Goos–Hänchen or Imbert–Fedorov effect,
does not require a relationship between a 'twist' and the photon
wavelength, since the path curvature provides the necessary phase
shift to keep the fields constant. These options must still be
confirmed.</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-BOTTOM:12pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Thus,
I have two models with different mobius twist factors. One with a
1/2 twist per 1/2 cycle, and one with no twist at all. I believe
that both models would allow the electron to be the lowest level
and this structure could have higher levels such as the muon.
(However, I don't think that they can be considered excited
states.)</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Andrew<br>_____________________________</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">On
Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>>
wrote:</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-TOP:medium none;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-TOP:0in;PADDING-LEFT:6pt;MARGIN:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt;BORDER-LEFT:#cccccc 1pt solid;PADDING-RIGHT:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Hi
Richard<br><br>One of the items which intrigued me while
studying electron models, was the notion that charge was
topologically generated by the spin of the electron. We
only find charge in spin 1/2 particles. Looking at U(1) and
SU(2) and the Yang-Mills "phase force" idea, led me to be even
more convinced.<br><br>As it turns out, it seems the photon is
capable of generating charge topologically, when confined. Of
course the simplest method to express that confinement is a
monochromatic circular plane wave, certain toroidal models may
also work, as long as the negative end of the E field is exposed
to the outside.<br><br>Another attraction in starting with the
plane circular model, is the relative ease of analyzing wave
interference. It happens that wave interference is very
important, because the result is that the effective electrical
and magnetic radius is then slightly larger than the transport
radius, providing the exact values for the magnetic moment (with
anomaly), and the exact electric charge. Wave interference
occurs near the center of the model, making the E field less
efficient near the center, and thereby shifting the effective E
field radius, and therefore the effective magnetic radius,
outwards, while not affecting the transport radius.<br><br>With
these values (magnetic moment and charge) defined so accurately
in the model, it is still a little puzzling that my models wave
interference predicts a value for the fine structure, internal
to the electron, of 0.007285993718303 when the actual value
(CODATA) is 0.0072973525698. The difference is 0.1557% but
I still feel it is significant, and want to know why the
difference is there. Maybe I am calculating the interference
incorrectly or incompletely. Or maybe there is another
contribution to the fine structure which I have missed. While
writing this I may have discovered where my error is. I
kept telling myself that the fields actually extend far beyond
the effective RMS radius but falling off in intensity, and I
accounted for that in part of the wave interference
calculations, but not all of the interference was calculated,
because I failed to see its tiny contribution before
now.<br><br>Another aspect of my model which is unique and not
incorporated in any other model we have seen is the relative
phase of the electrical and magnetic components of the
wave. This aspect becomes important when understanding how
the photon is confined.<br>The electron exhibits many clues to
its nature. From this model we can calculate the exact known
value for the Quantum Hall effect, by simply running some
standard electrical engineering formula using the "voltage",
"current", and frequency. This indicates also that an electrical
engineering analysis may provide other valuable
information. Using a similar approach we can understand
that the electron will display a particular phase relationship
between E and M components. In a simple EM resonant system
the E and M components are shifted 90 degrees at
resonance. If we start with a 90 degree phase shift
and look at the double loop configuration of the wave we
see an apparent 180 degree phase shift in the confined E and M
components, placing them on opposite sides of the electron
radius at any given instant. Then it is much easier to see that
with the E and M fields on opposite sides, and the attraction
between these fields, the issue of photon confinement is
simplified somewhat.<br><br>We still have a ways to go, getting
answers to many of the remaining questions. But so far it
seems like the group has uncovered some important new
understanding which may lead us to a clearer, causal, view of
physics, and provide a new basis which can describe experiment
more fully and accurately.<br><br>Chip<br><br>-----Original
Message-----<br>From: General [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">general-bounces+chipakins</span></a>=<a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier<br>Sent: Saturday, February 28,
2015 11:47 PM<br>To: Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">Subject:
Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion<br><br>Hi
Chip,<br><br> Thank you for your thoughtful as well
as personal history comments about your interest in modeling the
electron. My own interest in the structure and composition of
the electron dates back to the late 1980’s. My spiritual guru
gave some new ideas in 1986 about how matter might be formed by
a kind of life principle transmitted through subtle vibrating
life-energy entities that have both a mental and a physical
portion. That idea intrigued me and soon I tried to apply the
idea to make a model of a photon as being composed of millions
of these oscillating life-particles. I had mainly my intuition
to guide me. My photon model soon contained a single circulating
energy entity (a superluminal energy quantum) traveling
helically at a 45 degree angle with the speed c sqrt(2) and a
total momentum along a helical trajectory of (h/lambda) sqrt(2).
The energy quantum's helical radius is the photon’s wavelength
lambda divided by 2 pi. This result came out of the requirement
that the photon model should have its experimental value of spin
hbar (or minus hbar) generated by the transverse component of
the superluminal energy quantum's total momentum along its
helical trajectory, while having the transluminal energy
quantum’s longitudinal component of momentum be the photon's
linear momentum p=h/lambda.<br><br> I then
modeled the electron as a closed charged photon-like object. I
knew very little about the Dirac equation except its prediction
of antimatter and that the electron has a 4pi rotational
symmetry. I also found that a single closed-loop of one
wavelength of a photon (the Compton wavelength h/mc) with the
electron’s rest energy mc^2 yields a spin of 1 hbar — twice the
value of the electron’s spin. It hit me that making a
double-loop of a single wavelength photon produces an electron
model with a spin of 1/2 hbar.<br><br> While
making my electron model I realized that it should also have the
electron’s magnetic moment M — approximately the magnitude of
the Bohr magneton (e hbar)/2m. I set the electron model to have
the Bohr magneton for its magnetic moment by adjusting the
radius of the closed helical path of the helically moving
charged superluminal energy quantum so that its helically
circulating charge generates the Dirac equation electron's Bohr
magneton for the electron model. (Choosing a slightly larger
helical radius generates the electron’s exact experimental value
of magnetic moment which is a little larger than the Bohr
magneton’s magnitude.)<br><br> Later I started
analyzing other people’s cyclical models of the electron more
closely. I found that Dirac had claimed that electrons actually
move at the speed of light, but that only a sub-luminal speed
can be observed. I found two analyses of the Dirac equation that
suggested that the path of a moving electron’s charge can be
described as light-speed along an open helix. This gave me the
idea to fit my model of the circulating charged photon for a
resting electron to this light-speed helical approach. I
realized that the circulating photon in the electron model would
have an increased frequency f corresponding to its increased
total energy gamma mc^2 when the electron moves forward, and
that the corresponding wavelength of this circulating charged
photon would decrease with this increasing frequency, in order
to keep the speed of light of the circulating charged photon
constant. The radius of the charged photon’s helix was found to
decrease with increasing electron velocity by the factor gamma^2
in order for the photon’s wavelength to decrease as described as
the frequency of the charged photon increases with increasing
electron speed and total energy. All the math worked out nicely,
including the generation of the electron’s spin 1/2 hbar for a
slow moving electron from the tangential component mc of the
charged photon’s total momentum gamma mc along its helical axis,
multiplied by the radius hbar/2mc of the charged photon’s
helical axis for a slow moving electron. And I realized that any
speed-of-light double-looping photon model for an electron
should also follow a corresponding helical path whose radius
decreases in the same way with the electron’s increase speed.
This is because the result only depends on the relations E=hf,
p=h/lambda , and c= lambda f , the basic quantum energy
and momentum equations for a photon and the equation for wave
motion with speed c.<br><br> Although I
knew that any acceptable electron model would have to generate
the relativistic de Broglie wavelength Ldb = h/(gamma mv) , I
was quite surprised that this result falls out so easily from
the circulating charged photon model of a moving electron, where
the longitudinal component of the circulating charged photon’s
wave vector k yields the wave number that corresponds to the
relativistic de Broglie wavelength. Furthermore, this simple
result for the origin of the electron’s de Broglie wavelength
suggests that the quantum wave functions for a moving electron,
which depend heavily on the electron's de Broglie wavelength,
are produced mathematically from the waves generated by the
circulating charged photon that models the
electron.<br><br>
Richard<br><br>> On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:47 AM, Chip Akins
<<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>>
wrote:<br>><br>> Hi Richard and ALL<br>><br>> You
asked for a comparison of electron models.<br>><br>> Since
1986, while having lunch with a mathematician, Eric Peterson, I
have felt that the electron was made up of EM waves, or a
photon.<br>><br>> Several of us have come to the same
conclusion.<br>><br>> When I saw your model from 2005 many
things started to make sense. That is why I was so excited
and interested to fully pursue the math to try to deeply
understand your TEQ model. It was quite informative and
inspiring to see your work.<br>><br>> Since that time,
principally due to an Occam's razor argument, I have returned to
the view that TEQ's are not required to model the
electron. While I still feel that it may be possible that
TEQ's exist, I do not find, in my view, that it is required for
the modeling of the photon and electron.<br>><br>> When I
later saw John W and Martin's work from 1997 I was again very
interested, principally because they were saying the same thing
I was thinking, in general.<br>><br>> While running the
math and testing the model from John W and Martin, it occurred
to me that we had to have some sort of photon model to build the
electron from. So I produced the simplest model I could imagine
which would fulfill what I felt then was the basic
criteria. My view of the basic criteria has since changed
due to this collaboration, so I am working now to update my
electron model. However it seems most of the electron
model remains intact.<br>><br>> The fundamental
differences between my model and John W. and Martin's model are
as follows:<br>><br>>
I found that wave interference may be precisely the cause for
the exact value of the magnetic moment
anomaly, and the cause for the exact value for the
elementary
charge.<br>><br>> That
wave interference, incidentally, produces a new view of the fine
structure
constant in the electron.<br>><br>> My motivation, in
part, to do this work, was because we have to provide an
electron model which is simple in comparison, and competes with
current theory and models in accuracy, before such a model will
be considered a viable alternative.<br>><br>> My model
currently falls short of some of the goals that I feel we will
need, in order for our work to be considered noteworthy and to
be eventually accepted.<br>><br>> My model also
demonstrates the cause for inertial mass, but I think John W.
and Martin's model may illustrate the same property. And in
fact, all confined photon models may show the same attribute of
inertial mass.<br>><br>> There are implications of the
work we are doing which we also need to discuss. If Matter
is made from light, when you think about its implications on
relativity, leads to the existence of a preferred reference rest
frame in space, leading us toward Chandra's view and
CTF.<br>><br>> Working with all of you is both
enlightening and inspiring.<br>><br>>
Chip<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> -----Original
Message-----<br>> From: General<br>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">general-bounces+chipakins</span></a>=<a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandpart" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandpart</span></a><br>>
<a href="http://icles.org/" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">icles.org</span></a>] On Behalf Of Richard
Gauthier<br>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:10
PM<br>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br>> Subject: [General] double-loop electron model
discussion<br>><br>> I would like to start a thread that
focuses on comparing and contrasting the various
double-loop electron models, mainly John and Martin’s (J/M's),
Chip’s, Vivian's and mine, and any others that people may know
of, to find any common areas of agreement, and any points of
difference. I think we are all agreed that the resting electron
in our various models has spin 1/2 hbar. Chip’s model is based
on J/M's model. I’d like to ask Chip, if I might, what
commonalities and differences exist between J/M’s electron model
and Chip's electron model. We can go on from there, if that’s
agreeable.<br>> Richard<br>>
_______________________________________________<br>> If you
no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
of<br>> Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>
<a<br>> href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n</span></a><br>>
<a href="http://atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfir" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">atureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfir</span></a><br>>
m=1"><br>> Click here to unsubscribe<br>>
</a><br>><br>>
_______________________________________________<br>> If you
no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
of<br>> Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><br>>
<a<br>> href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-n</span></a><br>>
<a href="http://atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubcon" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">atureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubcon</span></a><br>>
firm=1"><br>> Click here to unsubscribe<br>>
</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>If
you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a> <a
href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"><br>Click
here to
unsubscribe<br></a><br><br>_______________________________________________</span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">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" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">mules333@gmail.com</span></a><br><a
href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"><br>Click
here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div></div></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",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:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black"><br><a
href="</span><span style="COLOR:black"><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a></span><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">"><br>Click
here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN:center" align="center"><span style="COLOR:black">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<div>
<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"></span></p></div></div></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",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:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><br><a
href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"><br>Click
here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",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><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click
here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></blockquote></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></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<span> </span><a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">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></span></p></blockquote></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div></div></div></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",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></span><span style="COLOR:black"><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black"><br><a
href="</span><span style="COLOR:black"><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a></span><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",sans-serif;COLOR:black">"><br>Click
here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></blockquote></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></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><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></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-SIZE:9pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Helvetica",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><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click
here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><span style="COLOR:black"></span></p></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR:black"></span> </p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<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></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<p>
</p><hr>
_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
List at <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>