<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from rtf -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Calibri" size="3"><span style="font-size:12pt;">
<div>David, John W,</div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div>Can I mention a couple of things re the latest couple of emails:</div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0033CC"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div><font color="#0033CC">The leptons in general and the electron in particular appear "structureless" in high energy collision experiments. There is no simpler charged object within them - at least up to the level of current experimental capability. If such
a thing was discovered, it would anyway just shift the charge puzzle to a deeper level.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0033CC"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div>Charge is surely to do with the electron being a 720-degree twisted “knot” or “winding” of field variation with a harmonic tuned standing-wave circulation that makes that field variation look like a standing field. A simplistic 2D depiction of the electromagnetic
field combines “electric” field lines with “magnetic” field lines like this: </div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;"><img src="cid:E289C75EE2447A4182ABC1AE8F5A5E4C@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com"><font size="3"><span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></font><font size="3"><span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></font></span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div>Looking for structure is like hanging out of a helicopter probing a whirlpool with a bargepole, and when you can’t feel the billiard ball in the middle, saying it must be really small. Note that <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AOn_Physical_Lines_of_Force.pdf&page=53"><font color="blue"><u>Maxwell</u></font></a>
referred to vortices and a “screw” mechanism, and that the <a href="http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/"><font color="blue"><u>gravitomagnetic field</u></font></a> is not totally unlike the electromagnetic field. You can then
hopefully appreciate the spinor nature of the electron, and how electrons and positrons move like cyclones and anticyclones, linearly and/or rotationally around one another:</div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;"><img src="cid:763064765151144B8DBFD62BEA944C1F@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com"><font size="3"><span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></font></span></font></div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0033CC"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div><font color="#0033CC">Proper relativistic? IMHO I agree GRT is a requirement, but local conditions may permit a lower impedance and therefore, a higher value of c.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0033CC"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div>A gravitational field is a place where the speed of light varies, and because of this light curves. But that curvature is slight, it is not the curvature of electromagnetism. When an electromagnetic wave moves through space, space waves. And where space
waves, space curves. If a wave moves through a wave just right, or through itself just right, its path is so curved that it is closed, and then the all round curved space is what we call charge. It’s curved round 720 degrees, not 719 degrees or 721 degrees,
hence unit charge. (Actually you might say it’s 1080 degrees, but you get the drift). </div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div><font color="#0033CC">Agreed whole-heartedledly. Confinement and its mechanism are the key here. I have been puzzling for a long time about the mechanism for confinement. </font></div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0033CC"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div>Surely it’s just displacement current? The photon displaces its own path into a closed path. If you have a big wave in the ocean, and a little wave going across it, the path of the little wave curves up then down. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0033CC">As Martin noted, we were lucky enough to work with Casimir himself in the early days - looking for a possibility of using the Casimir force for electron confinement for our electron as a localised photon model. Our conclusion was
that a spherical (bubble) cavity did not work, but that a toroidal cavity might. </font></div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0033CC"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div>I like the spindle sphere torus. It has a toroidal topology but a spherical geometry. It’s what you get when you “inflate” the torus. </div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0033CC"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div><font color="#0033CC">Photons transform to particles and vice-versa. The key here, and the argument in the WvdM model a couple of decades ago, is that the photon transverse field becomes configured topologically so that it becomes radial. This is, for
us, the origin of charge. In doing this, the configuration becomes, necessarily, double-looped. This is, for us, the origin of the creation of fermions from bosons. </font></div>
<div><font color="#0033CC"> </font></div>
<div>Why this isn’t common knowledge I don’t know. How else does pair production work. Magic?</div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div><font color="#0033CC">perhaps the magnetic monopole??? </font></div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0033CC"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div>The electron has an <i>electromagnetic</i> field. It doesn’t have an electric field, so it doesn’t have an electric charge, so it isn’t an electric monopole, it’s an electromagnetic monopole. So there is no magnetic monopole. There can’t be because an
electromagnetic field is a “twist” field, which looks like a magnetic “turn” field (think rotor aka rot aka curl) when you move through it. And there are no regions of space that are turning like a bearing in a cup. Space isn’t like that. There are no discontinuities.
What you get is frame-dragging instead. </div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0033CC"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div><font color="#0033CC">I think the first step may be to replace the scalar curvature in GRT at present with a pseudoscalar curvature. </font></div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0033CC"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div>The electromagnetic field is curved space, google on <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/"><font color="blue"><u>electromagnetic geometry</u></font></a>. The gravitational field is inhomogeneous space. When you plot this inhomogeneity with light clocks in
an equatorial slice of space you see a curvature on your plot, and you say spacetime is curved. But space is <i>not</i> curved. Instead the speed of light varies. That’s why optical clocks go slower when they’re lower, and why light curves. See <a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22speed%20of%20light%22"><font color="blue"><u>Einstein
saying this</u></font></a>. The plot that depicts Riemann curvature is showing the coordinate speed of light in the equatorial slice of space, that’s all. </div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;"><img src="cid:7B532A2A8BE9A84E90219742E13357DE@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com"><font size="3"><span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></font></span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div>John D</div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;"> </span></font></div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>