<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><font class="">Dear</font><font size="4" class=""> All,</font><div class=""><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font size="4" class="">I wish I had your free time to contribute further to this very interesting discussion. Regarding the reaction of ArXiv towards John W's paper, I refer you to President Eisenhower's farewell from office speech, see below. </font></div><div class=""><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" class=""><span class="" style="line-height: 14px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1cm; ">Eisenhower DD (1961a);</span><span class="" style="line-height: 14px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1cm; "> </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY" class="" style="line-height: 14px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1cm; "><span class="" style="line-height: 15px; ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY</span></a><span class="" style="line-height: 14px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1cm; "> </span><span class="" style="line-height: 14px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1cm; ">(9 min 50 sec to 10 min 50 sec)</span></font></div><div class=""><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" class=""><span class="" style="line-height: 14px; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1cm; ">The relevant words are:-</span></font></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt 14.2pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.15pt; line-height: 17px; font-size: 16px; "><i class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific/technological elite.”<o:p class=""></o:p></span></i></p></div><div class=""><span class="" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -1cm; "><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px; ">Despite President Eisenhower's words, </span><i style="line-height: 14px; ">public policy</i><span style="line-height: 14px; "> has </span><i style="line-height: 14px; ">itself become the captive of a scientific/technological elite. </i><span style="line-height: 14px; ">The elite are almost exclusively the theoretical physicists who have used mathematics to develop the current standard models. </span><i style="line-height: 14px; "> </i><span style="line-height: 14px; ">They have the ear of government policy makers by telling us all what a great job they have done in forming the foundations of modern physics that has led to the great technological revolution the world is currently experiencing. </span></font></span></div><div class=""><span class="" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -1cm; "><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px; ">The reality is very different. Thomson's experimental isolation of the electron and the experiments of others such as Rutherford and Chadwick in identifying the constituents of the nucleus has provided the </span></font></span><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px; ">great impetus to our modern technological world. Sure, Dirac predicted the positron before it was observed experimentally. A few "elementary particles" were predicted before they were observed experimentally. Most of the remaining theoretical "findings" have been based upon those theoreticians playing "catch up" with myriad of experimental results, claiming the work was not possible without their models. </span></font></div><div class=""><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px; "><br></span></font></div><div class=""><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 14px; ">We are discussing t</span><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px; ">his "rotating" or "double loop" photon model because we don't believe the standard model interpretation of an electron as a "point particle" with properties attached. We aren't alone in not believing in the standard model. Rather we represent a group of people who have sufficient knowledge to mount some form of credible challenge. Those theoretical physics elite who have made their "reputation" on the standard models don't want to lose their status. They use "maintaining a scientific standard" as an excuse for "press censorship". Their censorship is total, something that regimes like North Korea would really like to have. </span></font></div><div class=""><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px; "><br></span></font></div><div class=""><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px; ">Their ranks swell all the time as the only people who receive funds for serious scientific studies are those who receive scholarships to study some aspects of the standard model. Nobody can progress in this field unless he or she "toes the standard model line". </span></font><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 14px; ">The scientific elite </span><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 14px; ">have moulded</span><span style="line-height: 14px; font-size: large; "> the reviewer system associated with "mainstream" journals to suit</span><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 14px; "> </span><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 14px; ">the </span><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 14px; ">standard models.</span></div><div class=""><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 14px; "><br></span></div><div class=""><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 14px; ">The standard model proponents have built up such huge momentum that they can't be broken by theoretical </span><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;">arguments. Even with experimental proof of the accuracy of a new theory, it will take a long time and a lot of effort to overcome. (I know because I have done it before. The "experts" distort everything that supports an alternative theory as they try to retain their "elite status".) I have observed the various theoretical arguments forwarded. Many are "missing the point". For a theory to be accepted it should provide a testable prediction that is unique to that theory. Experiment is reality! Theory is only an aid to understanding reality. In itself it is not reality. If a theory has merit it must be able to predict a feature that can be measured by experiment. It should also be unique to that theory and not predicted under the "standard model".</span></font></div><div class=""><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div class=""><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;">Chandra is providing a unique opportunity for this rotating or double loop photon model of an electron to be discussed in an acceptable main stream conference. This in itself is a significant advance and one that should be treated as an opportunity to commence forwarding the model as a serious competitor to the "standard model". This will not achieve anything if participants simply present their theory. It needs to be carefully organised with presenters pointing out predictions that are made from these new ideas. In the discussions in this forum you should also forward predictions that can be tested from your theoretical work. I give again a reference to my work on the double loop rotating photon model of an electron. While the mathematics may not appear to be as rigorous as that which some of you use, its important feature is that it makes a number of predictions that can be tested by experiment. To have any chance of being even taken seriously, there needs to be a presentation at the end of the discussion of a number of predictions that can be </span></font><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 14px; ">experimentally tested which, if found to occur, will separate this model from the "standard model" </span></div><div class=""><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div class=""><a href="http://www.la-press.com/a-proposal-for-the-structure-and-properties-of-the-electron-article-a2645">http://www.la-press.com/a-proposal-for-the-structure-and-properties-of-the-electron-article-a2645</a></div><div><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 14px; "><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 14px; ">I would also like to suggest that you are careful about relying </span><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;">heavily upon the use of mathematics. There is a considerable distrust of the extensive use of mathematics among the general public and many well qualified scientists. As they say "You can use mathematics to prove anything you want". I have seen many examples of this before, as I am sure have some of you. Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) is a classical example. It uses quarks, with fractional charge which has never been detected, and gluons that have never been independently isolated to mathematically "match" properties of the nucleus. When a prediction isn't supported by observation, they "use more (change the) mathematics" to make it match. </span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;">Don't get me wrong, mathematics is essential. But use it in conjunction with a physical principle to calculate the magnitude of that physical principle. Accurate but non rigorous mathematics that predicts a previously unknown unknown property of a particle. For example the reduction in radius of an electron with increasing energy, beats rigorous mathematics on a point particle to which a wave function has been attached. Both Richard G and I predict this reduction in radius, although we have different expressions for that reduction. But it needs a few predictions like that, which can be tested experimentally, for this study to make progress. It is only through that type of prediction issued as an </span></font><span style="font-size: large; line-height: 14px; ">experimental</span><span style="line-height: 14px; font-size: large; "> </span><span style="line-height: 14px; font-size: large; ">challenge</span><span style="line-height: 14px; font-size: large; "> to the standard model that </span><span style="line-height: 14px; font-size: large; ">will make any headway against the "elite" that President Eisenhower warned </span><span style="line-height: 14px; font-size: large; ">could capture public policy. </span></div><div><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;">I agree with John W that all particles are composed of rotating photons, in one form or another. I venture so far as to suggest that there are a considerable number of properties of protons, neutrons and neutrinos that can be explained under this double loop rotating photon model. </span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;">I will do whatever I can to attend the SPIE meeting. At this stage I have extensive commitments over that time and cannot guarantee making it to the meeting. This is the reason why I haven't submitted an abstract for presentation at that meeting. In my opinion, the best way to be taken seriously is use the opportunity Chandra is providing you to come to a consensus on what theoretical predictions this model makes that can be tested experimentally, for which the standard model has no explanation. It is only through that type of result that there is any hope of challenging the "standard model". </span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;">Cheers,</span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;">Vivian Robinson</span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="line-height: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div><br></div><div><div>On 14/03/2015, at 3:31 AM, Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">John,</div><div class=""> Thanks for your explanations. The link to my American Physical Society presentation abstract is <a href="http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR15/Session/Y16.4" class="">http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR15/Session/Y16.4</a> . For reference, my article “The electron is a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength" is attached, and is downloadable from <a href="https://www.academia.edu/10740682/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength" class="">https://www.academia.edu/10740682/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength</a> and <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272167387_The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength" class="">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272167387_The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength</a> .</div><div class=""> with best wishes,</div><div class=""> Richard</div><div class=""> </div><div class=""> </div></div><span><electron is charged photon with de Broglie wavelength 12 Feb.pdf></span><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 13, 2015, at 8:54 AM, John Duffield <<a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" class="">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space" dir="ltr" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;" class="">
<div class="">Richard,</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Re your charge and light question:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><em class=""><font color="#0000ff" class="">how can matter such as electrons be made of light
if the light that electrons are made of is not electrically charged?</font></em>
</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">I think the best way to explain this is to refer to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current#History_and_interpretation" class="">displacement
current</a> wherein Maxwell said <em class=""><font face="Times New Roman" class="">light consists
of transverse undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and
magnetic phenomena</font>.</em> The photon is a sinusoidal field-variation,
rather like a seismic wave. Imagine that as it passes you by, space lurches left
by 3.86 x 10<font style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" class="">⁻¹³</font>m, then it lurches right by
3.86 x 10<font style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" class="">⁻¹³</font>m. You wrap this photon into a
tight double clockwise loop with a twist, such that you have a lurch-left loop
which varies sinusoidally, and another lurch-left loop which varies
sinusoidally. The latter used to be the lurch right, but it’s been twisted right
over. The two sinusoidal loops complement each other - think of a sine wave and
an upside-down sine wave fitting together. The result is that you end up with a
3.86 x 10<font style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" class="">⁻¹³</font>m all-round clockwise skew. You
had a field-variation going along at c, and now it’s going around and round at
c, the wave is displacing its own path into a closed path, and it’s in such
harmony with itself that the field variation looks like a standing field. You
call this “knot” of self-bound field-variation a charged particle, and you call
this standing field an electromagnetic field. It isn’t totally unlike the
gravitomagnetic field, see below, but it’s a 3D skew. Imagine you grab a lattice
with your right hand and twist it round clockwise. Then you reach round the side
with your left hand and twist it orthogonally clockwise. Then you let go and the
thing stays put like a knot in a tennis net when your ball pocks into it and
catches. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span id="cid:74A23DEE58D14615851620904667BC4F@HPlaptop"><gravmagdet[1].jpg></span> </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><em class=""><font color="#0000ff" class="">Where’s the electron’s electric charge if it is not
associated with the light that the electron is made of?</font></em> </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">In the topology, in the configuration of the field-variation, in the
winding. Light is alternating displacement current moving linearly at c. When
you wrap this up just right into a closed path, the result is what you call a
charged particle. Then when you move that, you call it conduction current. But
this conduction current is just displacement current going round and round, and
linearly along. The electron’s intrinsic spin makes it what it is. It’s a bit
like a cyclone. A cyclone’s intrinsic spin makes it what it is. Take away the
rotation, and all you’ve got is wind. Do the same for an electron, and all
you’ve got is light. And how do you take away the rotation? With an anticyclone.
Or with a positron. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><em class=""><font color="#0000ff" class="">Have you considered and eliminated the possibility
that there may be two types or expressions of the photon, one uncharged and the
other charged? Since the nature and origin of electric charge is not understood
at all, I think it is bit premature to dismiss the concept of an electrically
charged photon that composes the electron.</font> </em></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">I like to think I do understand it, at least in outline, and would
reiterate that “the charged photon” will be used as ammunition to discredit
everything else you say. IMHO the model needs to match pair production where we
start with one or two uncharged photons, and where mass and charge are emergent.
Electron-positron annihilation is the reverse process. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><font color="#0000ff" class=""><em class="">I agree with you that the scientific enterprise has
its vested interests and that those proposing revolutionary physics ideas
outside the central paradigm are persona non grata to some of these folks.
Still, the American Physical Society is willing to give out-of-the-box ideas a
forum at their annual conferences. I will be presenting a short talk on the
electron as a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength at their annual
April meeting in Baltimore. Andrew read the article and noted the derivation of
the de Broglie wavelength from the circulating charged photon model. John W.
commented that the model has something going for it. I would like to know if you
have found any holes in the derivation of the de Broglie wavelength in the
model, because it is one of the model’s most notable features. And if the
charged photon model of the electron is shown to be wrong, we’ve still learned
something. But if such new ideas can’t be proposed and discussed openly and
critically in this group, where on earth can they be
discussed?</em></font></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Good luck with the talk, yes I think the model is partially correct. But I
also think the charged photon is something you really need to work on.
Apologies, I haven’t looked at the derivation of the de Broglie wavelength, I’ll
get back to you on that. But not for a while, I have to go away tomorrow, and
might be incommunicado for a week. As for new ideas, we are discussing them.
People are just a little respectful that’s all, and don’t want to cause offence.
</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Regards</div>
<div class="">John D</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;" class=""></div>
<div style="font-size: small; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; display: inline;" class="">
<div style="FONT: 10pt tahoma" class="">
<div class=""><font size="3" face="Calibri" class=""></font> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5" class="">
<div style="font-color: black" class=""><b class="">From:</b> <a title="richgauthier@gmail.com" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">Richard Gauthier</a> </div>
<div class=""><b class="">Sent:</b> Friday, March 13, 2015 3:53 AM</div>
<div class=""><b class="">To:</b> <a title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</a> </div>
<div class=""><b class="">Subject:</b> Re: [General] double-loop electron model
discussion</div></div></div>
<div class=""> </div></div>
<div style="font-size: small; text-decoration: none; font-family: Calibri; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; display: inline;" class="">
<div class="">John D.,</div>
<div class=""> Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Please help me to
understand them better. On the one hand, you have claimed least a couple of
times on this thread that matter is made of light. On the other hand you say
that the idea that a photon (i.e. light) can be electrically charged is
nonsense. So my question to you is: how can matter such as electrons be made of
light if the light that electrons are made of is not electrically charged?
Where’s the electron’s electric charge if it is not associated with the light
that the electron is made of? Have you considered and eliminated the possibility
that there may be two types or expressions of the photon, one uncharged and the
other charged? Since the nature and origin of electric charge is not understood
at all, I think it is bit premature to dismiss the concept of an electrically
charged photon that composes the electron. </div>
<div class=""> I agree with you that the scientific enterprise has its vested
interests and that those proposing revolutionary physics ideas outside the
central paradigm are persona non grata to some of these folks. Still, the
American Physical Society is willing to give out-of-the-box ideas a forum at
their annual conferences. I will be presenting a short talk on the electron as a
charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength at their annual April meeting in
Baltimore. Andrew read the article and noted the derivation of the de Broglie
wavelength from the circulating charged photon model. John W. commented that the
model has something going for it. I would like to know if you have found any
holes in the derivation of the de Broglie wavelength in the model, because it is
one of the model’s most notable features. And if the charged photon model of the
electron is shown to be wrong, we’ve still learned something. But if such new
ideas can’t be proposed and discussed openly and critically in this group, where
on earth can they be discussed?</div>
<div class=""> with warm regards,</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Mar 11, 2015, at 1:41 AM, John Duffield <<a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" class="">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space" dir="ltr" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: calibri" class="">
<div class="">Richard:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">In an ideal world a consensus would emerge wherein everybody would agree
on the electron. This is supported by hard scientific evidence such as pair
production and electron diffraction and refraction, the Einstein-de Haas
effect, magnetic moment, electron spin, atomic orbitals where electrons “exist
as standing waves”, and annihilation to gamma photons. It’s pretty obvious
that an electron is a photon going round and round with some kind of spin
<font style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" class="">½ 720-degree rotation, and that electron mass is
the result of this. When you annihilate the electron with the positron,
you’ve got a radiating body losing mass, just like <a href="https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/" class="">Einstein’s
paper</a>. What could <em class="">be</em> more obvious? </font></div>
<div class=""><font style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" class=""></font> </div>
<div class=""><font style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" class="">And yet John can’t get his paper on the
arXiv, because in this imperfect world there are vested interests who stand
four-square in the way of scientific progress. They will use anything they can
to discredit an idea. If they can find one little flaw they will magnify it
and maliciously claim that the author is some amateur crackpot who has got
everything else wrong, and who should be dismissed and disregarded. With
respect, your charged photon falls into that bracket: <em class="">a photon is not a
charged particle, ergo the whole idea is nonsense</em>. I would urge you
to think deeply about this, not just because of yourself, but because of the
impact it could have on this group. </font></div>
<div class=""><font style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" class=""></font> </div>
<div class=""><font style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" class="">All: </font></div>
<div class=""><font style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" class=""></font> </div>
<div class=""><font style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" class="">I would recommend a similar caution. If
there’s anything you’re tempted to say that might turn out to be wrong, be
aware that there are malicious people out there who will use it against you
and the group. It’s one thing to kick things around in group emails, but it’s
another thing to include it in a paper. If in doubt, leave it out.
</font></div>
<div class=""><font style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" class=""></font> </div>
<div class="">Regards</div>
<div class="">John</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: calibri" class=""></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline" class="">
<div style="FONT: 10pt tahoma" class="">
<div class=""> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5" class="">
<div style="font-color: black" class=""><b class="">From:</b> <a title="richgauthier@gmail.com" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">Richard Gauthier</a> </div>
<div class=""><b class="">Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 11, 2015 6:18 AM</div>
<div class=""><b class="">To:</b> <a title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</a> </div>
<div class=""><b class="">Subject:</b> Re: [General] double-loop electron model
discussion</div></div></div>
<div class=""> </div></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline" class="">Hello
John,
<div class=""> Thank you for your further clarifications. I think that your
and Martin’s 1997 electron model (with its ongoing improvements) still leads
the (somewhat rarified) field, though Chip’s model may be catching up fast. My
charged photon model of the electron seems to be waiting in the wings,
although I think it has one or two things going for it, such as its simplicity
(but not too simple), its generality (it could accommodate a variety of
different photon models), its resemblance to Dirac’s light-speed electron, and
its ease of generating the relativistic de Broglie wavelength of a moving
electron. The charged photon model only requires that the charged photon
has the photon properties E=hf, p=h/lambda and c=f lambda, and
move in a closed double-looped path of 1 Compton wavelength h/mc in the case
of a resting electron (thus generating zitterbewegung motion and a natural
spin of 1/2 hbar). You and Martin have said that your photon with toroidal
topology is not charged, but I think you will agree that this model, when
moving through physical space, will be closely accompanied by its effective
electric charge. And that may be close enough to say that this circulating
photon is charged, even though the circulating photon's charge is not moving
at light-speed with the photon. A resting electron has “rest mass". The
circulating photon composing the electron therefore has “rest mass" (or
inertia) also, which it somehow gets by confining itself. I think we all
somehow agree about this. </div>
<div class=""> As Bohr once said to Pauli, “we all agree that your new
model is crazy. Where we differ is whether it is crazy enough.”</div>
<div class="">
Richard</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Mar 9, 2015, at 10:19 PM, John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" class="">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">
<div style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; DIRECTION: ltr; FONT: 10pt tahoma; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px" class="">Oh
dear me,<br class=""><br class="">I am trying to clarify the meaning of Martin and my old
model, but I seem just to be confusing everyone more. Apologies for this. I
think we should perhaps try to concentrate on saying what our our models
mean - and not say what other models mean. At the risk of sowing (yet more)
confusion ...<br class=""><br class="">No, no no (and no).<br class=""><br class="">No: I did not say the photon
spin in the electron model was 1 hbar, but that the result was a full twist.
To define spin one needs a spin axis and there is no single axis for (the
photon) spin. It tumbles, giving a "quantum bicycle" motion. The spin may be
seen as being more like 1-1/2 = 1/2 - but this is far too simple and not the
way it was put in. It was calculated by integration - not by adding
numbers.<br class=""><br class="">No -the differences you suggest are not the differences I
see. For me, some differences are<br class=""><br class="">The EFFECTIVE half integral spin
comes from the initial photon MOMENTUM , not its angular momentum. This is
just R(eff) cross p (as you say for your model). The characteristic R (eff)
is, for us lc/4pi precisely because the mode structure is a single
wavelength. This R is not in the same space as the fields, but in a space
related by division (by differentiation - to be more precise). THe two
valuedness comes, for us, because that space is more closely related to
complex numbers (scalar aND PSEUDOSCALaR SPACE) than to 3D space or 4D space
and time.<br class=""><br class="">The reason this is a fermion is that the resultant complete
motion is A) double covering, and B) interferes to give a (strong) repulsive
force for same state systems. It is only secondarily that this happens to
integrate to give an, overall , half integral spin numerically. The numerics
are, once again, not really important for the model. Real photons may have
(and, as Chandra pointed out, are measured experimentally to have) any spin.
1 hbar is a limit, not a rule.<br class=""><br class="">No we do (and did not ) put the
"Harmony of phases" in: it comes out.<br class=""><br class="">We do not put charge in: it
comes out.<br class=""><br class="">All paths in our model are lightspeed. There are no
superluminal (or subluminal) paths.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Our electron is not a
little donut whizzing around in space (this would be inconsistent with the
experimental observation that electrons are, apparently, spherically
symmetric) - but in the projected space of the fields and
momenta.<br class=""><br class="">Your argument about the increase in the angular momentum
would be true for a charged photon on a rigid bar attached to a real axis.
This is not the same model as we use.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">In your argument about soin
you seem to be mixing the transformation properties of fields with those of
material particles. The reason a photon angular momentum remains constant
under a Lorentz transformation (not in the 1997 paper but in the 2014 paper
not in arXiv) is that, to maintain linearity, the transverse size scales
inversely with the energy. This is because fields transform TRANSVERSE ONLY
under a Lorentz transformation, not along the direction of motion
LONGITUDINALLY ONLY(as do the velocities or momenta). There is a good
discussion about this in Stephen's thesis.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">What this means is that photons
shrink laterally at the inverse rate as their energy-momentum increases -
hence keeping a constant angular momentum. This scaling happens for photons
(experimentally) for field (relativistically), and also for any electron
made of a photon or photons. Real electrons also, do not exhibit a spin
about an axis under all circumstances, but only if one tries to measure them
(against an experimental axis) - in which case one gets one of two values -
spin "up" or spin " down". That two-valuedness is, pretty much, what SU(2)
is in the standard model.<br class=""><br class="">On the concept of "charged" photon. Charge
is a non-zero field divergence. Such a thing, necessarily, has a rest mass
associated with it - just from the integral of field squared in the frame
where it is spherical (for Beamon, in the example I just circulated). One
then has a rest-massive photon. For me the definition of a photon is that it
is rest-massless. The charge, for me comes about because of the local
confinement. This means that saying "charged photon" sounds to me like
saying "massless mass". This is probably just my problem!<br class=""><br class="">Ho-hum ...
hope I have not made things even worse!<br class=""><br class="">Regards, John.<br class="">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'" class="">
<hr tabindex="-1" class="">
<div id="divRpF185967" style="DIRECTION: ltr" class=""><font size="2" face="Tahoma" class=""><b class="">F</b></font></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></body></html>