<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Andrew,</div><div class=""> A stationary electron is kind of an abstract idea isn’t it, since an electron is always measured moving forward with some speed, even if small? And when the electron moves, its measured spin (z-component) is in the direction of or opposite to its direction of motion, as I understand it, or else along some other experimentally defined axis. So the electron's internally circulating photon’s motion would generally be helical and not circular or spherical, wouldn’t it?</div><div class=""> Richard</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 27, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" class="">mules333@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class="">Dear Richard,<br class=""><br class=""></div>Something that no one seems to have mentioned/noticed is that the bound photon, as a stationary electron, should have a spherical rather than a circular path. Only in this manner can it have angular momentum in all and any directions. Also, when moving, even slowly, relativistic effects will 'flatten' the sphere in the direction of motion. This flattening will raise the energy, increase the inertia, and introduce the <b class="">E</b>-field distortions called magnetic field, <b class="">B</b>.<br class=""><br class=""></div>The path distortion from the spherical with motion gives a helical path for some portion of the photon length. The path is much more complicated for elements of the path that are not normal to the direction of motion. The photon itself may be a standing wave moving at c. If so, elements of the wave move faster than c and later move slower than c. In the electron, the same thing may happen. Only the average velocity is limited to c. Since the photon is a wave, the phase velocity can greatly exceed c, before the electron velocity becomes relativistic.<br class=""><br class=""></div>Andrew<br class="">__________________________________<br class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Richard Gauthier <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">Andrew and all,</div><div class=""> Here’s a design challenge: design a single or double-looped circulating charged photon (either of spin 1 or spin 1/2) that models an electron and whose electric field satisfies Gauss’ law and generates the electron’s charge -e from its electric field, while its magnetic field generates the electron’s magnetic moment (or at least the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m). The charged photon should travel at light speed and obey the relations E=hf and p=h/lambda. It should move in a circular path when the electron is at rest and in a helical path when the electron moves at non-relativistic or relativistic velocities, and should continue to generate the charge -e from Gauss’ law while the electron is in motion. Indicate what modification(s) if any of Maxwell’s equations are necessary to do this (they should be as few as possible, if any).</div><div class=""> Richard</div><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="h5"><div class="">On Apr 26, 2015, at 9:04 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">mules333@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""></div></div><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class="h5"><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""> Dear All,<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class="">Bob has addressed a point that should be too obvious to need
consideration. However, for many years, I ignored it and it appears that
most of us still do so. Conservation of charge. While it is possible to
posit and describe the electron in terms of a photon, recognition of
the requirement for charge conservation and the positive and negative
(but net neutral) nature of all photons must be accepted as a 'given'.<br class=""><br class=""></div>It
is for this reason that I have proposed the 4-D structure of the
electron/positron pair. It explains so much and leads beyond the
electron-only structure. I believe that this has to be a fundamental position for all of us - to be accepted, explained, and/or modeled in various ways. If not, then I fear that, as John W says, we will be unable "<span class="">... to convince people we are not crazies..."<br class=""><br class=""></span></div><span class="">The point is that while the 'twist' can explain the net charge of an electron, it presents the problem of what happens to the opposite field lines. They cannot be confined inside a 3-D container (topologically impossible w/o a charge source). My field-rectification and wormhole conjecture may not be the answer; but, it does address the problem. The field lines, as the gradient of a potential, presents a picture that Bob and I will be proposing for the dynamic potentials of standing waves within an interference pattern.<br class=""><br class=""></span></div><span class="">The question is, "since there is no original potential within the space that becomes an electron, how does it get there?" Actually, to create an electron/positron pair, a strong electrical-potential gradient (such as a nucleus) must exist. However, after the lepton pair is formed, the nucleus structure is left behind and remains unaffected. The potential(s) formed are balanced and become the lepton masses. They are separated in space by the nuclear potential gradient. Are they also separated and combined in 'time'? If so, how and by what. The energy density of the 'internal' field lines being compressed, by the photon 'curling' as it passes the nucleus, will distort space (into time) and help create the wormhole joining the field structures that will become the lepton pair.<br class=""><br class=""></span></div><span class="">This distortion is the electric potential created in the formation process. The womhole is the vortex that gives the pair stability (and perhaps their ultimate independence).<br class=""><br class=""></span></div><span class="">If anyone can come up with other (perhaps better) models, or reasons why such might not be required, please bring them forth.<br class=""><br class=""></span></div><span class="">Andrew<br class="">____________________________________<br class=""></span></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""><div class="h5">On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:17 AM, robert hudgins <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target="_blank" class="">hudginswr@msn.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class="h5">Dear Friends of Light, <br class="">Pardon my intrusion on your discussion. I have been warned that I will be excluded unless I actively participate. <br class=""><br class="">Chip's
diagram's are beautiful! His skill is enviable. However, it provokes
questions. Why spin h and not 1/2? Are colors charge related? <br class=""><br class="">The
photon may be a useful abstraction for expressing the way light energy
is packaged, rather than a stable, traceable entity. After the photon
energy has been assembled it may travel as a loosely entangled assembly
of EM waves that may follow unpredictable paths-- until they are
condensed and captured by a resonator. Though the electron is clearly
more discreet, it might also travel as an assembly of waves that pass
through both openings of a double slit while engaging in constructive or
destructive interference. <br class="">I am having conceptual difficulty imagining a topological twist that totally conceals only the positive charge of a photon. <br class=""><br class="">Is
an EM wave having only negative polarity a plausible construct? Are
electrons without a positive partners being created with any frequency
today?<br class=""><br class="">Thanks for your patience,<br class="">Bob<br class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="h5"><hr class="">From: <a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">chipakins@gmail.com</a><br class="">To: <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" class="">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:59:56 -0500<br class="">Subject: Re: [General] Einstein Philosophy by Dyson<br class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="h5"><p class=""><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif" class="">Hi All</span></p><div class=""><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif" class=""> </span><br class=""></div><p class=""><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif" class="">Just finished computing a possible field topology for a photon with spin h.</span></p><p class=""><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif" class="">Viewed from the longitudinal axis:</span></p></div></div><p class=""><span class=""><image001.jpg></span><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif" class=""></span></p><p class="">And the side…</p><p class=""><span class=""><image004.png></span><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif" class=""></span></p><div class=""><div class="h5"><p class=""><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif" class="">Chip</span></p><div class=""><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif" class=""> </span><br class=""></div><div class=""><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif" class=""> </span><br class=""></div><div class=""><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 0in" class=""><p class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size:11pt" class="">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt" class=""> General [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank" class="">general-bounces+chipakins</a>=<a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" class="">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b class="">On Behalf Of </b>Mark, Martin van der<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b> Saturday, April 25, 2015 6:47 AM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b> Re: [General] Einstein Philosophy by Dyson</span></p></div></div><div class=""> <br class=""></div><div class=""><p class="">Dear Chandra,</p></div><div class=""><p class="">I agree. I think that Einstein was even more right than he realized himself, but the future must show us.</p></div><div class=""><p class="">Bohr
did a great job on finding the structure of the atom and introduced a
revoltionary way of thinking to hold up the postulates required. That
way of thinking, however, is merely a scafolding, and it should be
removed to see the truth and beauty lying hidden behind it.</p></div><div class=""><p class="">Copenhagen interpretation is now no more than a dogma that hampers progress!</p></div><div class=""><p class="">Cheers, Martin<br class=""></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><div class="h5"><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">Op 25 apr. 2015 om 01:32 heeft chandra <<a href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank" class="">chandra@phys.uconn.edu</a>> het volgende geschreven:</p></div><blockquote class=""><div class=""><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class="">Friends: </span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class="">For
a brief moment, allow me to change the subject. Freeman Dyson is an
excellent writer. In the last part of his “Book Review” article
(attached), Dyson beautifully summarizes the three philosophical
positions of Einstein (Classical), Bohr (Duality) and the current
generation (</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class="">Quantum-Only</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class="">).
To save time and to get to the philosophy segment, jump to the bottom
of the picture showing Bohr and Einstein goofing and relaxing!</span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class="">My
philosophical position is more in line with Einstein; while
acknowledging that the one of the three key reasons behind the emergence
of quantum uncertainty is “because the processes in the second layer
are unobservable” (Dyson). This is why I have proposed, with
demonstrated experiments in my book (“Causal Physics”), that when we
start framing our enquiring postulates to imagine and visualize the
invisible interaction processes, the nature start to become a lot more
transparent even within the current QM formalisms. Further, this
philosophy of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPME) shows that
current QM, in spite of its great successes, a next generation
formalism with deeper levels of enquiry has to be developed by the next
generation. In other words, I am suggesting that our Knowledge
Gatekeepers should change their blind devotion to currently successful
theories and encourage the next generation to come up with various
serious but radically different possible approaches. Our conference
platform is one such example.</span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class="">If
we do not deliberately frame our enquiring questions to visualize the
invisible aspects of nature’s interaction processes; we will forever
remain in the darkness of duality. Duality represents ignorance; it does
not represent new or better knowledge. We have to go beyond Bohr.</span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class="">Chandra.</span></p><p class=""><a name="14cfb147c7bcb94f_14cf64a3c4683655_14cf39fc4b3f623f__MailEndCompose" class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)" class=""> </span></a></p><div class=""><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 0in" class=""><p class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif" class="">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif" class=""> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" class="">mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b class="">On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b> Friday, April 24, 2015 9:46 AM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b> David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br class=""><b class="">Cc:</b> Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray<br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b> Re: [General] Articles of interest</span></p></div></div><div class=""> <br class=""></div><div class=""><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span class="">Dear David and everyone,</span></p><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span class="">Sounds as though MIT does a bit of a better job of promoting itself than I do (what a surprise!).</span></p><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span class="">There
is nothing much new in looking at single electrons. SLAC was doing this
for years in HEP with its linear accelerator. For that matter Millikan
was sensitive to single electrons with his oil-drop experiment – and
the school I went to was enlightened enough to let me do this experiment
myself at the age of sixteen or so. What is marvelous is that they can
make it sound as though detecting one electron something sexy! Robert
Hadfield (in our group) is in the business of detecting single photons
and John Weaver (in our group) has huge capability to look at individual
electrons with some of his work as well. This stuff is widely
published!</span></p><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span class="">More
important than looking at detecting single electrons (easy enough!) is
looking at the underlying sub-electron structure. Back in the late
1980’s and early 1990’s I was in the business of looking at just that. I
designed a single electron electrometer sensitive at down to about a
thousandth of the electron charge. If you look at my Google scholar page
you can find several papers related to this. The device could also be
used as a single electron pump, to deliver a stream of electrons phase
locked to the frequency of a varying gate potential. My paper (see
attached), looking at the electron sub-structure delivered electrons
one-at-a-time and probe the profile of the individual electron
wave-function with a resolution of better than a tenth of its de Broglie
wavelength. This experimental work did not stop when I left the field
of course. Leo Kouwenhoven, in particular, spent many years
investigating my single-electron electrometer device (and creating new
ones) in the last quarter of a century. There is now a very great deal
of experimental information about the inner structure of matter,
electrons (and photons) with which to work. </span></p><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span class="">What
was lacking then, and is still not widely accepted now, is a proper
theoretical framework within which to interpret this inner structure.
This is what we have to do. Firstly develop the theoretical framework
and secondly get the message out. </span></p><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span class="">We
have to convince people we are not crazies and that this is serious,
new science. That is what will be hard. Any communications of this to
the outside world needs to get rid of the speculative , ill informed, or
just plain wrong stuff that is perfectly ok within the context of an
online discussion or over a pint or two, but not ok at all if we wish to
make a serious attempt at convincing the outside world. </span></p><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%" class=""><span class="">Regards, John.</span></p><div class=""><div style="text-align:center" align="center" class=""><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif" class=""><hr size="3" width="100%" align="center" class=""></span></div><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class=""><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">Click here to unsubscribe<br class=""></a><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" class="">mules333@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
</a><br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class=""><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">Click here to unsubscribe<br class=""></a><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>