<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
p
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"}
span.BalloonTextChar
{font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"}
span.EmailStyle21
{color:black}
span.EmailStyle22
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
span.EmailStyle23
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm}
-->
</style><style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Good morning everyone,<br>
<br>
Some comments , corrections and enhancements.<br>
<br>
Firstly,, a correction .. I thought I had sent you a link to a translation of the de Broglie thesis (which I read a long time ago in French) .... This is not so - it is an English translation of the 1925 article in Ann. de Phys. which covers much of the same
ground. ( i have found a French copy of this now).<br>
<br>
Secondly photons, non's and gon's. These names arose from a discussion yesterday, started by an initial disagreement between Martin and I about whether Andrew had something in his assertion that certain arguments were "bogus" ). This turned to agreement that
there was something in it pretty quickly - in that the photon is, at the very least, a peculiar sort of boson and for (near lightspeed) neutrinos, at the very least, more thught was required. There is far more to "spin" that a cursory read of elementary textbooks
would imply. This is know from experiments such as on the spin of the proton in HEP, the Tate anomaly in superconductor physics and so on.<br>
<br>
Davids comment on the transition to fermions and bosons as nouns (rather than adverbs as in Fermi - statistics) was also apposite - so we decided to try to chase some of this down in a wide-ranging discussion which went on for most of the day.<br>
<br>
This all descended into pretty much absolute hilarity as supper was being cooked - hence the invention of the two new particle concepts, the non and the gon. These may, or may not, have any use outside of a humorous situation . Hard to tell -one of them wasn't
even there to begin with and the other left rapidly afterwards.<br>
<br>
More seriuosly ou may wonder how Martin and John could possibly assert, on the one hand, that the electron is a localised photon, and on the other, that the photon is merely an overlap state of the sources. Will you please make up your mind?
<br>
<br>
No.<br>
<br>
Both these views are merely different ways of thinking about nature wearing different "hats". Both are the result of following (different) speculative lines of thought. Both have consequences. Both, when subjected to experiment, have deficiencies in some respect.
Actually, neither is the whole story.<br>
<br>
There is, of course, such a thing as a photon. It is t a shorthand way of describing the properties of light as observed in a wide range of experiments, from the photo-electric effect, through the "allowed" atomic transitions, to the theory of quantum electrodynamics
itself in which the photon is central.<br>
<br>
I do not need to remind you of those experiments taken to be evidence of the physical existence of the photon. The photo- electric effect is often quoted as definitive proof, yet Einstien's initial view was strongly contested by folk such as Millikan (on teh
basis of some very nice theoretical arguments involving resonance), but he later later reversed his position as fashions changed.
<br>
<br>
"Allowed" atomic transition in Chemistry (of the strong spectral lines) are dipole electric transitions with one unit of angular momentum change. This is interpreted as that the photon has an an intrinsic spin of 1, carries off one unit of angular momentum
(and hence is right or left circularly polarised). It is, but one may also view this as coming from an overlap function a "transition probabilty" between the allowed atomic states (as described in the Schrodinger picture). Further multipole radiation carries
additional (quantised units of ) angular momentum. Quadrupole one more, octupole two more, etc. Magnetic dipole one less (in a sense). This orbital angular momentum arises from the the product of the photon momentum with a change in radius r of r cross p
(or just rp). Always integer units of quantised angular momentum though. This is interpreted as the fact that - primarily, the photon carries one intrinsic unit of angular momentum away. Something is spinning away - and it is not cheese.<br>
<br>
I am a bit out of my depth in optics (and completely so in physical chemistry) - so please correct me (you specialists) if you disagree. For me an essential point is that, in such transitions, the size of the photon is far large=r than that of the emitter
or absorber - so easily acommodates the "r".<br>
<br>
To come back into a field with which I am familiar, another piece of evidence comes from the lifetime and decay times of ortho- and para- positronium. Para-positronium is a singlet state (spins antiparallel -confusingly) and decays in about 0.12 nanoseconds,
usually to two photons, but ONLY to an even number number of photons. Ortho- positronium, the triplet, has spins parallel and decays much (about a thousand times) more slowly - 130 nanoseconds. It goes primarily to 3 (but also to any odd number of) photons.
This may, on the surface, seem to be taken as conclusive proof that the photon has exactly intrinsic spin 1. That is the base states are right or left circularly polarised if the photon is of the order of the size of the emitter, (where the dipole approximation
is invalid). You can calculate this stuff pretty much exactly in QED (using photons), though there was a puzzle for a while in the lifetime ratio, but I hear this has now been resolved.
<br>
<br>
I should say that I do not entirely agree with one small element Martin's first point as stated(and I know what he means really). I agree that they are correct and that they are continuous, but do not think they are complete-yet. I think he is right to say
they cannot be quantised as they stand - and I think it is correct that they are - and should remain -continuous. I also agree that putting in the quatisation a-priori is misguided.
<br>
<br>
Nevertheless I fully intend to argue that they may be extended in such a way (as in circulated paper) that the underlying nature of the reason for quantisation of the allowed solutions (of the continuous field) pertaining to the experiments above is revealed.
Please, please argue with me on this one!<br>
<br>
Regards, John.
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF474125"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark@philips.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, March 15, 2015 5:17 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 class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">Hi all, in particular Andrew Meulenberg and David Saint John</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">This mail is to put some more context around the rather limited conventional view on photon spin I have presented so far ;-)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">Not that think that I have said anything that is wrong, but I admit that it cannot be the whole story.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">But before doing so, Andrew, I must first of all say that spin IS (intrinsic) angular momentum. Then again Angular momentum is not just spin, it may be and
almost always is, orbital angular momentum. Argue with Feynman If you don’t agree, but I think you will agree.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">David was very right on the 19<sup>th</sup> of February to talk about nouns: fermions and bosons were born out of Fermi and Bose statistics, thereby freezing
a concept that may not exactly apply in all case.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">Cases such as the photon. Yes Andrew, Chandra, I agree something is not quite right here.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">Despite of what I said before, see emails here attached below, there are a few remarks I will make to undermine it a little.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"><span style="">1)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">Personally I believe it to be likely that Maxwell’s continuous equations are correct and one should not attempt to quantize them.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"><span style="">2)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">To accommodate for the experimentally found situation, I believe that the emitter and absorber make that energy is exchanged in quanta, introducing hbar as
a measure of action. This in accordance with the views of Tetrode and Feynman and Wheeler.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"><span style="">3)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">Hence photons as such do not exist, and hence cannot be anything else than continuous field with boundary conditions imposed on them. Not a photon, not a
boson, not a fermion, just a non (or its anti-particle, the illusive gon).</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"><span style="">4)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">Nonetheless, experimentally it seems as if they are really there, and they are exceptionally hard to disprove.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"><span style="">5)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">Chandra thinks in linearly polarized photons, no spin at all, but hbar as energy to frequency conversion constant</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"><span style="">6)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">High energy physicists think in circularly polarized photons just +hbar or –hbar of angular momentum.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"><span style="">7)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">I think in any linear, circular or elliptical state, but must prove that superposition of either the linear or circular states is the best way to describe
the situation, or which is more fundamental, if one is at all.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">In any case, Andrew, I am quite open to consider anything here, but it should not destroy experimental insights from other fields.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D">Cheers, Martin (and John, in as far as he has recovered from my recollections of the compelling dreams about physics I had in the land of nod)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy" lang="DE">Dr. Martin B. van der Mark</span><span style="color:navy" lang="DE"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy">Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:navy"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:navy"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy">Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:navy"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy">High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:navy"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy">Prof. Holstlaan 4</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:navy"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy">5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:navy"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy">Tel: +31 40 2747548</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark, Martin van der<br>
<b>Sent:</b> zaterdag 14 maart 2015 19:28<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">Dear Chip, Andrew, Vivian,…etc</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">I am at John’s, but currently he is fast asleep. I think I wore him out with a very long session last night and this morning again.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">I see some good things happening.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:red">First to Andrew:
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">The photon is a spin 1 boson, but degenerate as they say since it cannot have spin {-1,0,+1}, but only spin {-1,+1}. The reason is that it is rest massless. It’s statistics are special too,
and depend on the kind of light source you are looking at, for example: blackbody radiation, laser beam or entangled pair.
<i>A coherent state, as output by a laser far above threshold has Poissonian statistics yielding random photon spacing; while a thermal light field has super-Poissonian statistics and yields bunched photon spacing. In the thermal (bunched) case, the number
of fluctuations is larger than a coherent state; for an antibunched source they are smaller</i></span> [Wikipedia:
<i><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">Photon antibunching</span></i><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">]. In general in QM the symmetry of a state is the product of all relevant ingredients, and this even
may make photons look like fermions if the total state is anti-symmetric. In any case the photon is special and it justifies to have a conference on “the nature of the photon”.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">Then the neutrino. I also think that it is quite strange and special. It may be just a topological fault in space, perhaps with a tiny bit of electromagnetic
energy in it… But it should perhaps (likely I would think) in its topology be similar to the electron.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:red">So now Chip’s very good questions to the group:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:red"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:red">How many of you feel that Maxwell’s equations (the full set of 20 if you like) are incomplete in their representation of microscopic field behaviors at the particle level?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The Maxwell equations are correct, I think, at all levels, but not complete at the quantum level</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">In any case one seems to need to add the Lorentz Force equations to supplement them (It is the common belief that these cannot be derived from the Maxwell equations, however this is not quite
true, see attached paper. The invariance principles and conservation of energy that lie at the basis of Maxwell’s equations do generate the force law by Hamilton’s variational principle using just and only just the em-fields)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:red"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:red">And, if you feel they are incomplete, what exactly do you think is missing?</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="">1)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Planck’s constant is not part of it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="">2)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Only recently people have started to take topological solutions of the Maxwell fields seriously (Irvine, Kedia, Bouwmeester, etc). Bateman had identified the framework for it in 1914, but
it was not picked up until very recently by Kedia. Rańada has already given solutions in the 1980ies, and calculated an action constant!!!!!!</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="">3)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Nobody can get stable solutions of CHARGED particles as topological knots with Plank’s constant in it (yet) (this is the subject of one of my abstracts….)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:red"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:red">For each of you with an electron model, to what do you attribute the force allowing confinement of the photon, into the double looped electron configuration?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The force is the result of two things at least: Topology and no channel for dissipation. The topology for the electron must be such that the field lines are all linked and cannot unlink (by
their nature they cannot cross). This is to my view a feature of what we would normally call the weak force. To continue on that, knotting flows of energy (instead of linking lines of fields) must then results in the strong force. Quarks do not exist, although
the symmetries attributed to them are absolutely correct, because there is not enough energy for them to be. (this is the subject of another of my abstracts…)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:red"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:red">And finally, we have an unprecedented availability to review experimental data and to correlate our theories with that data to check their validity. Are there any specific experiments
that we need to carry out to enhance our knowledge and prove any of our concepts?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">A very valid and important question indeed, and I have to think about it. I do have some ideas, but not solid enough.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Very best, Martin</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:red"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Oh, that is John just waking up….</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy" lang="DE">Dr. Martin B. van der Mark</span><span style="color:navy" lang="DE"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy">Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:navy"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:navy"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy">Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:navy"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy">High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:navy"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy">Prof. Holstlaan 4</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:navy"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy">5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:navy"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy">Tel: +31 40 2747548</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> 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>Chip Akins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> zaterdag 14 maart 2015 15:21<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>
<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">Vivian makes some very good points. But, given the members of this group, I don’t think the frustration of dealing with the established will deter us from this quest. It is however a deep frustration.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">This and worse, has been felt by many scientists in our past as well. But it does not stop us. We are a scrappy lot.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Good that we understand it and can attempt to develop a strategy to overcome it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">One such strategy may be simple logic.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Let me go a bit further in that vein.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Any comprehensive EM field theory should explain and define what we can observe of the behavior of EM fields. Planck’s constant and spin is a clear observable in the microscopic realm of EM fields. Can anyone show
how Planck’s constant is fully defined in, or directly derived from, Maxwell’s equations? Even in the full set of 20 equations from the 1863 to 1865 publications? If not, then it follows clearly that the field equations are incomplete. Our task then is to
suggest a complete version of the field equations. One that agrees with experiment. This is a critical step in developing a new and more solid foundation from which to build.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">We have all seen the elegance of the double loop photon model of the electron, but as we build those models, we face issues with the foundations we are working from. There seem to be “small” details missing from
our physical foundations.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Even crippled, by starting from an incomplete foundation, we have been able to find many answers. We have, however, seen what can happen when an elaborate theory is built on incomplete foundations. We don’t want
to create another theory full of inconsistencies, and unnatural infinities, which requires special cases and massaging, to force fit the answers to nature.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">While working on the puzzle, we built models of the electron from the photon. Once we have built those models, it becomes apparent that there are forces in the photon and electron which are not accounted for in
our field theories. Luckily we are able to start with the simple stuff, photon and electron, and still see there is something missing. John W and Martin, and in ways, others of us, have addressed some of the missing stuff.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">What we are proposing is a fairly substantial overhaul of an established, and well backed theory, the Standard Model. In order to be successful we must provide answers. We must provide better answers and solutions
than offered by the theory we are attempting to replace.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Some of the things we will find that we need to propose in the theoretical foundations will have profound implications in the nature and structure of the Standard Model. For some, perhaps many, the Standard Model
meets all the requirements to be classified as a religion. It is the belief system upon which their entire life and livelihood is based. The more prestigious their position in the scientific community supporting the Standard Model, the more they would “feel”
any shaking of that foundation.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">So now my questions to the group.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">How many of you feel that Maxwell’s equations (the full set of 20 if you like) are incomplete in their representation of microscopic field behaviors at the particle level?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">And, if you feel they are incomplete, what exactly do you think is missing?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">For each of you with an electron model, to what do you attribute the force allowing confinement of the photon, into the double looped electron configuration?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">And finally, we have an unprecedented availability to review experimental data and to correlate our theories with that data to check their validity. Are there any specific experiments that we need to carry out
to enhance our knowledge and prove any of our concepts?</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:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, March 14, 2015 6:48 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg<br>
<b>Cc:</b> P.G. Vaidya<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:black">Dear Andrew,<br>
<br>
Martin is here, but currently fast asleep. I think I wore him out with a very long session last night. I will have a go at beginning to take the discussion forwards, and suggesting some places to look.
<br>
<br>
I'm please you think that this process (of discussing) "the photonic electron is the basis for "self-consistently redefining the foundations of modern physics." That is exactly what Martin and I have been trying to do for the last quarter century or so and
it is so relaxing to have a few more of you to share the fun with. <br>
<br>
We need to remember, in doing this, that there is much which is good in physics as it stands- and anything we come up with must be consistent with those existing theories which have served us well (which is what Martin was trying to say in his very terse message
yesterday) - even if they have nor proven entirely consistent with experiment in every area.<br>
<br>
If there is disagreement with experiment, any new paradigm should fix those disagreements AND show how this moves seamless to an agreement where those theories are valid.<br>
<br>
Now this is really hard, of course. Free imagination- but strongly constrained by what we know to be right (the body of well-founded and well-understood experiment) and guided by what we alread know explains large areas of that experiment well- such things
as relativity, Maxwell, QM, QED, NIW and so on ...<br>
<br>
The currencies in the standard view (by which I mean within the standard model) is that the concepts of "fermion" and "boson" are so important, for example - that the fact that the proton is a fermion means that the quarks in quantum chromo-dynamics (QCD),
of which it supposed to be composed, must also be fermions.<br>
<br>
This view is, however, strongly challenged by experimental high energy physics. See O Fallon et. al. Phys. Rev. (1977). Yes 1977!. Also the, very accessible, explanation of this by the group spokesman, Krish, in Scientific american May 1979. This is an excellent
article "on the spin of the proton". It shows, indeed, thath the quarks as they are in the standard model - as fermions, simply cannot exist. They are simply inconsistent with experiment. This situation, as of 2015, still stands. Please, everyone, have a look
at these - especially the scientific american one as this gets properly to the underlying point. It has been a very long time since the fermionic and bosonic statistics ceased being a verb or an adverb and became seen as being an absolute noun. The Experimental
evidence, however, is simply against "quarks" being fermions. Eat this!<br>
<br>
Also, I have heard stated that the statistics of light in a laser is not Bose but Boltzmann. This is your field some of you guys .. true or false?<br>
<br>
In HEP the photon is seen as being a boson, but a peculiar one it that it has only two states as a free particle (seen as left and right (but opposite - right and left in optics convention). What is it? Boson or 2/3 boson?<br>
<br>
Discuss!<br>
<br>
Cheers, John </span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="color:black">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<div id="divRpF775051">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:black"> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333@gmail.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:21 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg<br>
<b>Cc:</b> P.G. Vaidya<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Dear Martin;</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">I feel that 'conservation of spin' may not apply in a relativistic bound-electron case (angular momentum yes, spin no). So, if that is the only experimental basis, then I am not convinced.
I believe that the neutron is a proton plus a deep-Dirac-level (DDL) electron that is stabilized by the presence of another proton and the exchange forces between them from the bound electron. [The DDLs are predicted by the anomalous solution of the Dirac
equations and, if they exist, then the spin-spin coupling of the proton and DDL electron is so strong that the hyperfine splitting of these levels may be in the MeV range.]
<br>
<br>
If this is the case, then the deepest (but highest-energy) DDL, if populated, contains an electron that is orbiting within the proton and is strongly interacting with the proton's quarks and their EM fields. This of course leads to speculation of what quarks
really are. As I said, this concept of the photonic electron is the basis for "self-consistently redefining the foundations of modern physics."</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Andrew</span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">________________________________<br>
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:27 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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear Andrew, </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I have to point out that experimentally it is really so that the neutrino is a fermion and the photon is a boson, it follows from the conservation if spin. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I am telling you, but you have to put your own energy and work into it to find out that it is realy true, that is the only way you will get the insight.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Most of the physics people try to make you believe is actually true!<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"><br>
Op 13 mrt. 2015 om 17:56 heeft Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a>> het volgende geschreven:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">John D said: "</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:black">We should “torque” about neutrinos more, because they are more like photons than they’re like electrons."
</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">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. </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">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)?</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">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.</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">This group could be self-consistently redefining the foundations of modern physics.</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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</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></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>