<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><base href="x-msg://2970/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><font size="4">John M and All,</font><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">John M, thanks for sending the two presentations which narrow the field of your extensive work. It has made it possible for me to understand your concepts without having to study the rest of your work. I agree with your assertion that space-time is a four dimensional continuum and is all that is needed to explain everything from the structure of the smallest sub atomic particles to that of the universe as a whole. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Having said that, I will add that nothing you have presented leads me to believe that the photon model I use in my work is not fundamentally correct. I will admit to not knowing everything there is to know about the structure and properties of photons. That is the reason I was keen to learn about your model, and anyone else's model. The more knowledge the better. However in the end it is experimental observations that determine the accuracy of science, not theoretical calculations</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">From my point of view, if experimentalists measure the energy density of the universe at ≈ 10**-9 J/m**3 and quantum mechanical practitioners calculate an energy density of ≈ 10**113, that is too great a discrepancy to consider matching. Using the assumptions of Wheeler (Empty space is not empty) and Miloni (<span lang="EN-US">a vacuum can be viewed as if it is filled
with harmonic oscillators with energy E = ½</span><s><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: STIXGeneral-Regular; ">ℎ</span></s><span lang="EN-US">ω = ½</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: STIXGeneral-Regular; ">ℎ𝛎, </span>is not necessarily a justified starting point. By your own admission, those harmonic oscillators are too small to be measured and the predictions you make are far removed from the </font><span style="font-size: large; ">capabilities</span><span style="font-size: large; "> of todays technology. Among other features I find your explanation that an electron, with a radius of 3.8 x 10**-13 m, does, upon collision, "instantaneously" .. "gives it particle-like properties". I prefer the answers given by John W, Richard G, myself and others that the the radius of an electron decreases with its energy, giving it a point like property as it travels at sufficiently high velocity.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large; "><br></span></div><div><font size="4">In my opinion, quantum mechanics relies upon the electron being a point particle. Any attempt to model an electron takes it out of the realm of quantum mechanics and as such all QM findings are not necessarily valid. I differ from the QM interpretation in that I believe there is a physical explanation for some of the "peculiar" quantum properties. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">I prefer to consider particles such as the electron, proton, neutron and neutrino, along with the myriad of sub nuclear particles. as particles and not waves. </font><span style="font-size: large; ">I suggest</span><span style="font-size: large; "> that they have their properties due to their structure.</span><span style="font-size: large; "> I </span><span style="font-size: large; ">have</span><span style="font-size: large; "> derived an expression for the de Broglie wave that is generated from my model. Richard G (and possibly others) have done </span><span style="font-size: large; ">similar calculations. That we get the same answer using a different approach is a topic for internal discussion only and does not </span><span style="font-size: large; ">indicate</span><span style="font-size: large; "> any fundamental </span><span style="font-size: large; ">flaw.In the same manner, the spin of an electron is due to the angular momentum of the double loop </span><span style="font-size: large; ">photon</span> <font size="4">rotation. It predicts other properties like E = mc**2 and the relativistic corrections of mass, length and time among other properties. I accept that quantum electrodynamics gives the correct answers. However I reject your assertion that it requires the energy density </font><span style="font-size: large; ">suggested</span><font size="4">. Other explanations are possible.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">I admit that I do not have all the answers and will search for them, like many others. This search will use the model of the photon as an electromagnetic field oscillation in free space, somewhat as I envisage it. This model is supported by some experimental evidence and other scientists. I am prepared to modify it, such as the number of wavelengths per photon, as indicated by direct experiment and not from a quantum mechanical interpretation. I will continue to search for answers outside quantum mechanics, using the experimental evidence as my guide, especially when that evidence supports QM. I have suggested the diminution of the radius of an electron with increasing energy as experimentally measurable with today's technology. That experiment could also distinguish between our model and your model. In our model, the two electrons of different energy accelerated towards each other will have defined radii. Your model appears to suggest that they will both instantaneously adopt the radius of the sum of their energies. Although I have not done the calculations, I suggest these would give different scattering patterns. Perhaps you would like to determine how electrons would scatter under your model at different energies between say 100 keV and 1000 keV.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Again thanks for giving me an insight into your model. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Cheers,</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Vivian Robinson</font></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment--><!--EndFragment--><div><br><div><div>On 08/04/2015, at 9:51 AM, "John Macken" <<a href="mailto:john@macken.com">john@macken.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="color: blue; ">Hello All,<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="color: blue; "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="color: blue; ">Since Vivian asked to see technical papers which supported my ideas, I decided to send everyone two technical papers which explain my ideas. The first one (titled: QM Foundation) has just yesterday been published by Springer as chapter 13 in the Springer book series<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><u>Progress in Theoretical Chemistry and Physics</u><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>(Volume 29). Previously I gave a link to this paper in a different format, but this is the published format. The second paper (titled SPIE 88320Q) was published in the SPIE Proceedings of the 2013 Nature of Light Conference edited by Chandra. To my knowledge the “SPIE” paper did not receive a formal peer review but the “Foundation” paper was peer reviewed.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="color: blue; "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="color: blue; ">The two papers have some overlap since it is necessary to explain the proposed quantum mechanical model of spacetime in both papers before discussing the different subjects of the two papers. I recommend reading the “Foundation” paper first since it is written more recently and covers all the subjects that I have mentioned in my posts (gravity of a particle, unification of forces, proposed new constant of nature, etc.). If the first paper has been read, it is possible to start the second paper on page 8 with the section titled “Model of a Freely Propagating Photon” The second half of the SPIE paper has information specifically associated with my model of photons. I intend to expand on the photon model with my presentation at this year’s conference.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="color: blue; "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="color: blue; ">John M.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div></div><span><QM_Foundation_Springer.pdf></span><span><SPIE 88320Q.PDF></span>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au" style="color: rgb(149, 79, 114); text-decoration: underline; ">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" style="color: rgb(149, 79, 114); text-decoration: underline; ">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>