<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17994"><span>Chip</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_19248"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17992" dir="ltr" class="" style="">I have difficulty with any declaration of absoluteness in various forms such as "...cannot exist independently." A little qualification and a bit more context should be permitted. Perhaps to date, quarks have eluded measurement, and so our knowledge to date about quarks is limited. The 1/3 and 2/3 charge business violates the good sense of whole numbers. Yet, normalizing charge to eliminate partial charge might have unintended consequences as is the case for other areas of physics. The changes in individual quarks suggest yet another level of building blocks below the elementary particle level. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17992" dir="ltr" class="" style=""><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17992" dir="ltr" class="" style="">While from time to time - usually after about 20 hours working straight - I might entertain the idea of using a compound pendulum with suitable high-density carrier of momentum at one end in hopes that the resulting imperfect elastic collision to smash computer (or smart phone) into many byproducts that are for the most part identifiable, one reaches a point where the byproducts are below the threshold of measurement by the limits imposed by experimental design, instrumentation, and time. </div><div dir="ltr" class="" style="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_23401"><br class="" style=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="" style="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_23401">"What's inside the quark?" may be a worthy and valued investigation. However, such an investigation would need to extend from the natural context of the zero vacuum we know and love and proceed into the negative vacuum. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17992" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17992" dir="ltr">Then again we may find the quark to be nothing more than a topological Glauber state of the Lepton family.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17992" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18388">Best</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18388"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18388">David</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18389"><br></div> <blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 5px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17886"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17885"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17884"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17883"> <hr size="1" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18485"> <font size="2" face="Arial" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17882"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Chip Akins <chipakins@gmail.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, May 27, 2015 7:05 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [General] Electron Torus<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17890"><br><div id="yiv7186781796"><style>#yiv7186781796 #yiv7186781796 --
_filtered #yiv7186781796 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv7186781796 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv7186781796 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv7186781796 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
#yiv7186781796
#yiv7186781796 p.yiv7186781796MsoNormal, #yiv7186781796 li.yiv7186781796MsoNormal, #yiv7186781796 div.yiv7186781796MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv7186781796 a:link, #yiv7186781796 span.yiv7186781796MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv7186781796 a:visited, #yiv7186781796 span.yiv7186781796MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv7186781796 span.yiv7186781796apple-converted-space
{}
#yiv7186781796 span.yiv7186781796EmailStyle18
{color:black;}
#yiv7186781796 .yiv7186781796MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;}
_filtered #yiv7186781796 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
#yiv7186781796 div.yiv7186781796WordSection1
{}
#yiv7186781796 </style><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17889"><div class="yiv7186781796WordSection1" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17888"><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17887"><span style="color:black;">Hi Richard</span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17891"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17991"><span style="color:black;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17990">You have done some excellent work showing a correlation between circulating photon models of the electron and their quantum wave function. Your work makes it much easier to see and understand these issues.</span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17892"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18098"><span style="color:black;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18099">Regarding field self-organization, Maxwell’s equations define a specific self-organization of fields, that is the nature of the equations, that is one of their purposes. But they do not define any spin. We know that EM fields exist and that they are present in photons, and other particles. It seems a small step to assume we would need to extend Maxwell’s equations to also define the cause for spin. </span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18097"><span style="color:black;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18096">We know that EM fields carry momentum. It also seems reasonable to believe that spin must be acting against (perpendicular to) the field’s longitudinal momentum. Starting with this simple basis leads us to a host of potential answers to puzzles.</span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18095"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18189"><span style="color:black;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18188">So yes I am giving fields properties which go beyond those generally accepted for EM fields, we are all proposing things which go beyond those things generally accepted. We are doing that because it is evident to us, and to most physicists, that we still do not have all the answers. And we must explore beyond what we now know and currently accept.</span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18967"><span style="color:black;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18966">It seems that the strong force may also be a mutual field force which is EM in nature. So I am not excluding the strong force in the assumptions. With the proper extension to Maxwell’s equations we also find some surprises, like the Pauli Exclusion as John W. has pointed out.</span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18484"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17894"><span style="color:black;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17893">With either the quantized field approach, or the TEQ approach, we still have a remaining problem. We do not have an adequate definition for the photon. If a photon can be one, or many, wavelengths long, but still only contain the energy of one photon, and still only have the spin angular momentum of one photon, neither the TEQ solution, nor the quantized-field based on energy-density solution, work to create the possible range of photon configurations.</span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17984"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17996"><span style="color:black;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17995">If you feel that the TEQ is more fundamental than fields, instead of being made of fields, then I guess we have come to completely different opinions on this subject. I feel that if there is something more fundamental than fields, it is very small, and closer to John Macken’s model for space. While you may be right, I currently feel that fields are more fundamental. Principally because it seems that quantized fields can supply the answers without the “energy quantum” approach.</span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17997"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17998"><span style="color:black;">Regarding: “</span>It would be interesting to see this quantum mechanical result graphically animated and to also see if a plane wave generated by the circulating TEQ charged photon model would generate the quantum wave function for an electron.<span style="color:black;">” How can I help? Any ideas on how to approach the modeling of this? It seems I always learn something from these models.</span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_17999"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18001"><span style="color:black;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18000">Now about quarks. If you smash your computer with a very large hammer and a single blow, you are not likely to come to an understanding of the undisturbed organization of the components inside a computer. With enough energy you will rearrange the components and they will tell you little of the actual undisturbed configuration. Yes we can see a different organization of the energy after collision, which can provide some insight into the nature of space and particles, but probing particles in this manner has some serious limitations. The actual organization of energy inside of a proton or neutron is probably different than high energy collision can disclose. As Martin has pointed out, the binding forces for the proton are of necessity, quite huge. So trying to break apart these particles to see what is inside will manifestly destroy much of the configuration information. What can we say assuredly about quarks? They are the result of high energy collisions, they cannot exist independently. We cannot say that precisely and only 3 quarks are what make up a proton. Despite current views, we may not even be accurate if we say that there are any “quarks” inside a proton??? What if the energy of collision, combining with the energy of the particles, is what creates quarks?</span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18965"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18964"><span style="color:black;">Chip</span></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18963"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div><div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yiv7186781796yqt8813667128" id="yiv7186781796yqt80884"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18960"><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18959"><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18958"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18962"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18961">On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:18 AM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18957"> </div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip,</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18956"><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432741570631_18955"> I appreciate that what we are doing here can be approached from multiple directions. But to me it seems to be oversimplifying to think that “all forces required to create particles are EM forces", since you seem to be excluding strong nuclear forces and their associated particles like quarks and gluons by this statement. And what about gravitons (if they exist)? Also if you grant “self-organizing” properties to EM fields, you seem to be giving them properties that go beyond those generally accepted for EM fields (or not?). I don’t know if an energy quantum would be self-organizing or would require inputs from an even deeper sub-quantum level.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> One reason I feel quite strongly that an energy quantum may be more fundamental that an EM field is that in my generic model for the electron, the circulating charge photon (no specific photon model is implied here) sends off plane waves corresponding to its momentum, directed along its helical trajectory. The mathematical component of these plane waves along the longitudinal direction of the charged photon’s helical motion is found to generate the quantum mechanical wave function for a free electron, with both the electron’s de Broglie wavelength and the electron's non-physical faster-than-light phase velocity c^2/v. This is described in my article “The electron is a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength” at <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://www.academia.edu/10740682/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength">https://www.academia.edu/10740682/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength</a> in Section 14: "Derivation of the quantum wave function for a free electron". This implies an interpretation of quantum mechanics (if this result holds for bound electrons and electrons influenced by force fields also) that the charged photon and its hidden wavelength h/(gamma mc) is “behind” quantum mechanics in a way that has not been previously proposed. Now there may be (certainly will be) other models for an energy quantum than my transluminal energy quantum model. But the idea that a helically circulating energy quantum for a charged photon (in the generic relativistic electron model) generates the quantum mechanical wave function for a free electron seems to me quite a fundamental result and worth further investigation. It would be interesting to see this quantum mechanical result graphically animated and to also see if a plane wave generated by the circulating TEQ charged photon model would generate the quantum wave function for an electron.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Richard</div></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;"><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">On May 25, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Chip Akins <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi Richard</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">I think that in many ways several of us are saying the same thing, but from different perspectives. When I first read and studied your work regarding the energy quantum and the photon and electron I was very intrigued, because I had been contemplating an energy quantum solution as well. <span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Subsequent to that it seemed that fields are not fully understood, and that fields are self-organizing. In that respect they would then become energy quanta naturally. <span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">If we start with the “energy quantum” as the foundation, then we will have to ask “what is an energy quantum?”, but if we start with fields, we define the energy quantum while solving the problem, it seems. This, and the lack of definition for spin in Maxwell’s equations, have led me to believe that the simplest solution requires extension of Maxwell’s equations in a manner similar to John W’s work. Once this is done then the definition for the energy quantum is provided, as well as an understanding of field topology and motion. With this approach we can see how and why energy is quantized. With such an approach we can understand the energy quantum and the particles it creates. Whether we choose to use the nomenclature “energy quantum” or we choose to refer to quantization mechanism and fields, we are describing the same thing in principal.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">However it is good to view this puzzle from many perspectives because that method allows us to better find any flaws in our reasonings. So I am not suggesting that you change your perspective, on the contrary, I am suggesting only that it is compatible, and synonymous in many ways, with other perspectives communicated in the group.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">To use an analogy, we can describe a building by starting with a brick as the most elementary part of that building, or we can describe the clay and sand and how the brick is formed and fired as the starting place. Each approach provides significant advantages in analyzing the complete picture. In the group we each have our own perspectives, we sharpen each other by challenging assumptions, and contributing ideas. But the multiple perspective are rich in helping us to have a better system view.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">One item that seems important is the binding force for the electron. This issue has been a problem for more than a century in trying to understand this simple, stable, and important particle. I now think that the binding force is completely described by the correct set of field equations. Starting from first principals and a very simple photon model, which has spin, we can see that the required forces are present but not accounted for in Maxwell’s equations. If this is the case, then it means that all forces required to create particles are EM forces, even if we do not now recognize them as such. It also seems to show that inertia is completely an EM caused phenomenon.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">So when we talk about fields, and assign a finite velocity to field propagation, we arrive at a spiral structure for the spinning fields in particles. <span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image001.jpg></div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">The core of the spiral seems to be very compact, with an energy density which is much higher than other areas of the field.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image004.png></div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">I can’t help thinking about your energy quantum when I look at these illustrations.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">If we consider two different spin modes for these fields we can show a topological source for charge. As John W., Martin, Vivian and I have done.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">The simplified transverse spin mode for a photon would be similar to:</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image005.png></div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Where the center of spin is at the junction of the negative and positive ends of the field lines.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">The longitudinal center of motion is the spin axis. The “transport radius” is zero.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">But the simplified spin mode for a charged particle would be more like:</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image006.png></div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Where the “transport radius” is not the same as the spin axis, but is offset so that the point of junction between the positive and negative ends of the field lines is displaced significantly from the spin axis.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">When we consider the momentum of the fields, and the assumed forces acting on the fields, we can see that it is possible that both of these spin modes are supported.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">They give the appearance of an uncharged photon and a “charged photon”. But it may be more precise to drop the photon nomenclature for the charged version because it is really no longer a photon.</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip</div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;"><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">]<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Richard Gauthier<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:12 AM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div></div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip, Martin, John D and others,</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> I suspect that the fundamental quantities of both spacetime and particles/fields are frequency (directly proportional to the energy of a particle and inversely proportional to time) and wavelength (inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and directly proportional to space). Spin is related to energy-momentum topology. Electric charge seems related to topology. Particles with rest mass are composed of charged photons and related speed-of-light particles like charged gluons (normal gluons are electrically uncharged but have color charge while quarks have both electrical charge and color charge.) And I suspect that the energy quantum (composing both speed-of-light particles and rest-mass particles) is the unifying link between spacetime and particles/fields (and therefore quantum mechanics/QED/QCD/quantum gravity) and may be the precursor as well as the sustainer of both.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Richard</div></div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;"><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">On May 24, 2015, at 7:06 AM, Mark, Martin van der <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><span style="color:purple;">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a>> wrote:</div></div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">John D, </span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">I fully agree with your reply to Chip, thanks for the details!</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Please join us at the bar;-)</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Cheers three!</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Martin<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone</span></div></div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none">Op 24 mei 2015 om 15:56 heeft John Duffield <</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">> het volgende geschreven:</span></div></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;word-spacing:0px;"><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Chip:</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">I’m blue, you’re black:</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">As all of you know, after Relativity was introduced and adopted, the popular belief for a while, was that space was empty, and that a media of space was not required. Now however it seems that most physicists have accepted that space is a media, with quantum attributes, and some level of energy density. </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">That popular belief was a cargo-cult false belief, because Einstein made it clear in his 1920 Leyden Address that space was the “aether” of general relativity. He made it clear that space was not some emptiness, but instead was a thing that is “conditioned” by a massive body such as a star.</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">If space is a media, what would we perceive which is different from space being empty?</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">That popular belief was a cargo-cult belief, because Einstein made it clear in his 1920 </span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22neither%20homogeneous%22"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Leyden Address</span></a><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">that space was the “aether” of general relativity, and space was not empty.</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Some would say there is no perceptible difference. But is that precisely true?</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">No. Like Einstein said in<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">1929</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">, a field is a state of space.</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">If space is a media, it implies a preferred reference frame in space. This is an item which would be difficult, or perhaps impossible to detect, but for one item. If space is a media with a preferred reference frame, then clocks in that reference frame would be the fastest clocks possible in the universe. </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">There’s also the<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">CMB reference frame</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">. It’s preferred in that it tells you your speed through the universe. And whilst it isn’t an absolute frame in the strict sense, the universe is as absolute as it gets.</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">One thing which would alter the ability to test this is a gross frame dragging of space around massive bodies or concentrations of mass.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">See<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/galaxy_sized_twist/"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">the asymmetric Kerr metric as a source of CP violation</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">. It’s to do with galactic frame-dragging.</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">If space is a media, and if frame dragging does occur</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">It’s a popscience myth that it isn’t a medium, electromagnetic waves do not propagate because an electric wave creates a magnetic wave and vice versa. I’m confident that frame dragging does occur, and that the electron electromagnetic field is a fierce example of it.</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b>A definition of TIME is the underlying objective of this line of questions.</b> For I see two possibilities, one is that time is an inherent property of space and, as the current relativity teaches, a fourth dimension in our “spacetime”. The other is that time is simply the rate at which particles can interact, caused by the fact that fields can only propagate at a finite velocity, and that we are made of particles which are circularly confined fields.<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">I feel the first explanation is less likely because it does not show cause, it does not tell us why time is part of space, just that it is. The second explanation is the one I currently prefer because it is a simple consequence of the nature of space and particles, it shows cause.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">I prefer it too, and so did Einstein. See<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/time-explained-t3.html"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Time Explained</span></a><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">and<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">A World Without Time: the forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">.<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Is time truly a fourth dimension at the lowest level of analysis of space?</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">No. We live in a world of space and motion. Our time dimension is derived from motion. It’s a dimension in the sense of measure, not in the sense of freedom of motion.<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Regards</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">John D</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;"><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">]<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Chip Akins<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>24 May 2015 14:24<br clear="none"><b>To:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi All</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">We are working on the foundations of physics. Studying and trying to decipher the result of experiment in a causal manner.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">As we do that it keeps bringing me back to the nature of space itself. John M has made some good points about starting from the makeup of space and working our way up from there. John D has communicated a solid and basic approach to many of the issues. Many of us have proposed models, field formulations, and a host of other possible explanations for what we observe.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">As we reflect on what we have done and what we still need to do, there are some things which may still need to be addressed and answered before we can make progress in certain areas.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">For example, the nature of space and time, are fundamental to understanding physics. Some of us feel we have a reasonable handle on this, and it is a very basic part of what we are doing, but I am thinking that we do not yet have it quite right. For the endeavor we have undertaken, I think close is not good enough.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">First I want to state clearly that I do not yet propose to have the answers to the nature of space, all I have is conjecture so far.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">As all of you know, after Relativity was introduced and adopted, the popular belief for a while, was that space was empty, and that a media of space was not required. Now however it seems that most physicists have accepted that space is a media, with quantum attributes, and some level of energy density. </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">However many of the subtle suggestions engendered during that time when it was perceived that space was empty, and much of the “foundation” of relativity is still based on there being no media which constitutes space.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">If space is a media, what would we perceive which is different from space being empty? Some would say there is no perceptible difference. But is that precisely true?</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">If space is a media, it implies a preferred reference frame in space. This is an item which would be difficult, or perhaps impossible to detect, but for one item.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">If space is a media with a preferred reference frame, then clocks in that reference frame would be the fastest clocks possible in the universe. All clocks in all other inertial frames would be slower. One thing which would alter the ability to test this is a gross frame dragging of space around massive bodies or concentrations of mass.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">It seems that relativity has been tested with regards to the slowing of clocks with relative velocity to a precision of about 1.6% to 10% depending on which experiments you prefer. But of course these tests are at low relative velocities and only represent a narrow prat of the spectrum of tests which would be required to absolutely validate the entire curve. And an error of 1.6% is still a substantial error for this type of validation.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">If space is a media, and if frame dragging does occur, again it would be difficult to verify the existence of the media using clocks, depending on how much frame dragging there is. If space is a media, how can we calculate the frame dragging and quantify it?</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b>A definition of TIME is the underlying objective of this line of questions.</b> For I see two possibilities, one is that time is an inherent property of space and, as the current relativity teaches, a fourth dimension in our “spacetime”. The other is that time is simply the rate at which particles can interact, caused by the fact that fields can only propagate at a finite velocity, and that we are made of particles which are circularly confined fields.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">I feel the first explanation is less likely because it does not show cause, it does not tell us why time is part of space, just that it is. The second explanation is the one I currently prefer because it is a simple consequence of the nature of space and particles, it shows cause.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">One thing I think we must remember as we construct a physical model is that we are dealing with the fundamentals and foundations, the building blocks so to speak, and in that endeavor we will probably find instances where a phenomenon like the definition of time, or the definition of charge, or the definition of spin, is not the same at the micro level as it is at our macro observable level. If we do our job well we will discover the causes and sources of many of these types of phenomena. At levels below the causal level for any of these phenomena, the macro rules no longer apply in full.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">After saying that, a question would naturally arise, if time as we measure it is merely the result of the interaction of particles, how and when do we incorporate the dimension of time in our calculations? Is the development of time at such a low level that we should include it in all calculations, just as relativity teaches? Or does time come into play only at the particle level, and the finite velocity of light predominates at lower levels? Is time truly a fourth dimension at the lowest level of analysis of space? Or does it just appear to be that way from our perspectives due to the nature of our particulate construction and measurements?</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Any and all opinion and argument is eagerly appreciated. If you could please let me know your take on this and the reasons you feel that way I will be grateful.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;"><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">]<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></b>John Williamson<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, May 22, 2015 8:02 AM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Hello Chip,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Have been meaning to say for some time: you are producing some beautiful models.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Would be good to talk at some stage.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Regards. John (W)<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"></span></div><div><div align="center" class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;"><hr align="center" size="2" width="100%"></div><div id="yiv7186781796divRpF393921"><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">From:</span></b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">] on behalf of Chip Akins [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">]<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, May 22, 2015 1:59 PM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi Richard</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Sorry I was modeling what I though was the spin 1 photon model of the electron.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">This is what I perceive to be your spin ½ photon model of the electron to be with velocity. Same velocity steps as before.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Nested set of models,</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image001.png></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Slow trajectory lines, purple, faster trajectory lines tending toward green.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Here is the code for the electron’s reference frame for the above graphic:</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">X(ii)=Roc*(1/y^2+(1/y)*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc))*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc);</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Y(ii)=Roc*(1/y^2+(1/y)*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc))*sind(y*c*(t)/Roc);</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Z(ii)=(Roc/y)*sind(y*c*(t)/Roc);</span></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Note: there is still a very small electron model (with velocity 0.9988c) at the center of this graphic. In this model the contraction is in all directions, not just longitudinally. I think this is correct, but it does not agree with some interpretations of relativity. It is also difficult to see how this model, without spiral fields, would look the same to a moving observer when the electron is “at rest”. </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">And the model is of course not really spherical.</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Does this match your results?</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Can you share the graphics model you have done?</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip</div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;"><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">]<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Richard Gauthier<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, May 22, 2015 7:31 AM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">John D., Chip and Andrew,</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Isn’t it the case that in standard physics (experimentally confirmed) the measured spin of an electron is relative to the motion of the observer of the electron, just as the observed momentum of an electron is relative to the motion of the observer of the electron? If an observer moving west to east with a relativistic velocity v1 passes a “stationary” electron (in some reference frame) , the electron has an observed momentum (when it measured) going west, and a spin either up or down (when it is measured) in the east-west direction and a de Broglie wavelength corresponding to the relative velocity v1, while when an observer moving relativistically south to north with velocity v2 passes a “stationary" electron , the electron has an observed momentum (when it is measured) going south, a spin that is up or down (when it is measured) in the north-south direction, and a de Broglie wavelength corresponding to its relative velocity v2. (In QM, velocity, spin and de Broglie wavelength probably can’t all be measured at the same time). </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">The relativistic energy-momentum equation for the electron E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 applies to the electron described above when observed by two observers with two different relativistic velocities compared to the electron. I showed in my article “the electron is a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength” that the same relativistic energy-momentum equation applies to a helically moving double-looping photon that may compose an electron, where E is the energy of the photon (the same as the total energy of the electron composed by the photon), p is the longitudinal momentum of the helically moving photon (the same as the momentum p of the electron being modeled), E/c is the total momentum of the photon along its helical path, and mc is the transverse momentum of the helically moving photon, which contributes to the electron’s spin up or spin down value hbar/2 in the case of a slow moving electron (modeled by the double-looping photon). So every electron observed to have a momentum p will in this view also have a spin hbar/2 up or down in the direction of its momentum. </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Also, when a photon is Doppler shifted-due to relative motion of the light source away from or towards the observer, the observed wavelength of the photon is lengthened or shortened accordingly. Doesn’t this imply that the length of the whole photon (if it consists of a certain number of wavelengths) is also lengthened or shortened accordingly?</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Richard</div></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;"><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">On May 22, 2015, at 12:06 AM, John Duffield <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"><span style="color:purple;">johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a>> wrote:</div></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">David:</span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Why don’t photons get length contracted? Because they’re just waves in space moving at the speed of waves in space. A ripple in a rubber mat doesn’t get length contracted, nor do waves in space. Then when you make those waves go round and round, they still don’t get length-contracted. Then when you move past them fast, they still don’t get length contracted. You might say the path of those waves is different, but it isn’t, they didn’t change, you did. And if you boil yourself down to a single electron, and boil that down to a ring, then draw circles and helixes, I think it gets to the bottom of things.<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Chip:</span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Yes, I’m certain relative velocity is a determining factor. But note that “we” are made of electrons and things, so IMHO it’s best to start with two particles, such as the electron and the positron. If you set them down with no initial relative motion they move linearly together, and we talk of electric force. </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"><image005.jpg></span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">However if you threw the postiron over the top of the electron they’d move together and go around one another, whereupon we talk of magnetic force. Note that this is relative velocity, not relativistic velocity. I’ve seen people<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65335/how-do-moving-charges-produce-magnetic-fields"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">explain the magnetic field around the current-in-the-wire using length contraction</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">, but IMHO that’s a fairy tale, and I prefer a<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184055/atomic-explanation-of-magnetic-field/184079?noredirect=1#comment388570_184079"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">“screw” answer</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">. </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Regards</span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">John D</span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;"><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">]<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Chip Akins<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>21 May 2015 21:39<br clear="none"><b>To:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi John D</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Regarding…</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Sorry, I don’t think that can be right because you could go past an electron at .9988c.</span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Yes, I am coming to think that maybe the spiral fields caused by limited field propagation velocity, might play a larger role than I had first considered.</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">I think Martin was onto this aspect already.</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Wondering if relative velocity is a factor in determining what portion of the spiral field we detect or interact with? And if so, how that might work.</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image006.png></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">The earlier electron model graphics are created from the math that Richard developed for his spin ½ electron.</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;"><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">]<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></b>John Duffield<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:15 PM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Chip:</span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Sorry, I don’t think that can be right because you could go past an electron at .9988c.</span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Andrew:</span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Photons don’t get length contracted, and electrons are made out of photons in pair production. If you simplify the electron to a photon going round in a circle, then take one point on the circumference, you would say it describes a circular path. But when you move past the electron fast, you would say that point was describing a helical path. Then when you consider all points of the circumference, you might say the electron was a cylinder rather than a circle. And if you<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><i>were</i><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>that electron, everything to you would look length-contracted, because you’re smeared out. If I was a motionless electron you’d say I was length contracted. But I might say<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><i>I<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></i>was the one moving, and that<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><i>you’re</i><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>length-contracted. </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Regards</span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">John</span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;"><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">]<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Chip Akins<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>21 May 2015 17:52<br clear="none"><b>To:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi Andrew</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Images from the electron’s reference frame.</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">For Richard’s model using the spin 1 photon, and drawing in the electron’s reference frame, his math produces the following image for a set of nested electron models with velocities up to 0.9988c.</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image007.png></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">The small grey sphere in the center is the electron model for 0.9988c.<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">So in this model the electron shrinks in all directions, but remains principally spherical when viewed from the electron’s reference frame.</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">]<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Andrew Meulenberg<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:15 AM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">Dear Chip,</div></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">I learn something new every time. However, it may not be true.</div></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">If I interpret your images properly, the fastest electrons are the longest. However, relativistic shortening should shrink the length. I had expected the electron to 'pancake' in the direction of motion. You show the opposite. Is the pancake only in the electron's frame and the appearance from our frame is one of an extended structure? If both, do they cancel and, in reality, it is still spherical?</div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Andrew</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Chip Akins <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple;">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:</div></div></div></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;"><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi Richard</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">So it is a bit more difficult to visualize exactly what is going on from the graphics with velocity.</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">We increase the velocity is in steps from<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><b>zero through 0.9988c.</b></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">From the Z axis the illustration looks like:</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image008.jpg></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Showing the reduced radius with velocity.</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">But when we look at the model slightly off axis (Z axis) we see this:</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image009.jpg></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">So this is a set of nested electron models with different velocities, each starting from the same point (upper right of the illustration). These are drawn from an external observers frame and are not shown in the electron’s reference frame.<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">In the electron’s reference frame we would see closure to the trajectory, but in this reference frame, the trajectory (since it is moving) is not closed.</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;"><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [mailto:</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">general-bounces+chipakins</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">=</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">]<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Richard Gauthier<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:29 AM</span></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><br clear="none"><b>To:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b><span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip,</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Please correct a couple of typos in my last email. The TEQ (transluminal energy quantum) moves on the surface of a torus, not a helix. Also the first helical radius mentioned should have been Ro sqrt(2) = 1.414 Ro , not Ro sqrt(2)/2 = 1.414 Ro since sort(2)/2 = 0.707 not 1.414 . Thanks.</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Richard</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;"><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">On May 20, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Richard Gauthier <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple;">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip,</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Nice graphics!</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Shouldn’t the electric field lines of an electron at some distance from the electron model be pointing inward linearly towards the electron from infinity on all sides, since the electron's electric field (due to its electric charge) falls off as 1/r^2 . I don’t understand why the electric field lines appear closed in your diagrams.</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> In my original resting electron model the TEQ was a circulating negative electric charge which circulated on the surface of a helix. I called the circulating TEQ a photon-like object since it was similar to my TEQ model of a photon. I was assuming at that time that the photon in my resting electron model had spin 1, even though I had adjusted the helical radius so that the circulating TEQ generated the magnetic moment of the electron of 1 Bohr magneton, requiring a helical radius for the TEQ of Ro sqrt(2)/2 = 1.414 Ro which created the spindle torus in my model . So this was actually neither a spin 1 photon (whose radius for a resting electron would have been 2Ro, or a spin 1/2 photon, whose radius for a resting electron would be Ro, as in the 3D models that you and I generated from the moving electron equations I proposed. Since I currently prefer the model of an electron composed of a spin 1/2 circulating photon, this doesn’t generate the electron’s magnetic moment of 1 Bohr magneton. But it generates a magnetic moment more than 1/2 Bohr magneton which would be produced by a charge circulating at light speed in a simple double loop of radius Ro. I haven’t done the calculation for the magnetic moment generated by my spin 1/2 photon model of the electron, but I suspect that it would be 0.707 Bohr magneton (just a guess at this point). The calculation of this magnetic moment from the TEQ trajectory equations for a charged TEQ in the spin 1/2 photon model is relatively straightforward though.</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> By the way, have you looked at the side view of the actual TEQ trajectory at various values of v/c of the electron in the spin 1/2 photon moving-electron model that I proposed (and that you programmed and graphed in 3D to show how the model size changes as 1/gamma at various values of v/c)? The side view of the TEQ trajectory for a moving electron contains some surprises, at least for me. I thought that at high values of v/c (say 0.99 or 0.999) the TEQ would just appear from the side view to rotate helically around its reducing and increasingly more linear helical trajectory (whose trajectory reduces as 1/(gamma^2), with the TEQ’s helical radius reducing as 1/gamma. But that’s apparently not what happens. Could you check this with your 3D program? </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Richard</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;"><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">On May 19, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Chip Akins <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple;">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi Richard</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">If your spin 1 photon model of the electron is similar to John W and Martin’s model in that the field lines always orient with the negative end outwards (providing for charge) the estimated field distribution is similar to this illustration. (Equatorial View)</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image001.jpg></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">(Top View from Z axis)</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image002.jpg></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">(45 degree elevation view)</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image004.jpg></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Red lines represent negative ends of field lines, Blue lines represent positive, black is the transport radius, faint green line is one circulation at the transport radius.</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Photon field amplitude is shown as a cosine function of wavelength/2.</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;"><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:06 AM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip,</div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Perfect! It would also be good to have the pair of tori seen an an angle from above their ‘equator’ to get a more 3-D quality.</div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Richard</div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;"><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">On May 5, 2015, at 6:07 AM, Chip Akins <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple;">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:</div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi Richard</div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">How do these look?</div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image003.png></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image001.jpg></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip</div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 04, 2015 1:18 PM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi Chip,</div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> The radius of the circle in the horn torus (spin 1/2 photon model) should visually be (since it is actually) 1/2 of the radius of the circle in the spindle torus (spin 1 photon model) -- the spin 1/2 photon model is smaller than the spin 1 photon model. Thanks! And could you perhaps show the energy quantum trajectory in a different color that the torus background so the trajectory stands out better?</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Richard</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Chip Akins <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple;">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:</div></div></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi Richard</div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image004.png></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image005.png></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip</div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;"><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> General [mailto:</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">general-bounces+chipakins</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">=</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 04, 2015 12:19 PM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi Chip,</div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Thanks. And finally, the vertical ovals of the tori should be circles because the circulating quantum has the same radius in the vertical and horizontal directions.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Richard</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">On May 4, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Chip Akins <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple;">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi Richard</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Thank you.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Here you go:</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image001.png></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image002.png></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 04, 2015 10:43 AM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electron Torus</span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi Chip,</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Both tori should be symmetrical above and below the z-axis and center on z=0.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Richard</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">On May 4, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Chip Akins <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple;">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Hi Richard</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image001.jpg></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Viewed from the Z axis:</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image002.jpg></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">And from the equatorial plane:</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><image003.jpg></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, May 03, 2015 11:07 PM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] position</span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">Chip and all,</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> Here are some equations that relate to the modeling of a circulating photon as an electron. The second and third set include my own model of the photon. The first set doesn’t require a particular model for the photon, except as mentioned below. The first model is the one that generates the de Broglie wavelength as explained in my article mentioned below.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal">1. Here is the set of parametric equations for the helical trajectory of double-looping photon that models a free electron, and whose circular radius for a resting electron is Ro=hbar/2mc. The speed of the photon along this trajectory is always c. The longitudinal or z-component of the photon’s speed is the electron’s velocity v along the z-axis. The frequency of the photon around the helical axis is proportional to the circulating photon/electron's energy E=gamma mc^2. The distance of the photon’s helical trajectory from the z-axis for an electron whose speed is v, is proportional to 1/gamma^2. This equation is in my article “The electron is a charged photon with the de Broglie wavelength”. This equation does not include a particular model of the photon, but assumes that the photon follows the relations c=f lambda, E=hf and p=h/lambda. Both helicities of the helical trajectory are given.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none"><a href="</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none"><a href="</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple;">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><br clear="none"><a href="<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="color:purple;">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none"><a href="</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none"><a href="</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a></span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple;">mules333@gmail.com</span></a><br clear="none"><a href="<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="color:purple;">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none"><a href="</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a></span></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;word-spacing:0px;"><div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none"><a href="</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div align="center" class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;"><hr align="center" size="2" width="100%"></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">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.<br clear="none"></span><image001.png><image001.png><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none"><a href="</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a></span></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="yiv7186781796apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none"><a href="</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a></span></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div class="yiv7186781796MsoNormal"> </div></div></div></div><br><div class="yqt8813667128" id="yqt51245">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a><br clear="none"><a href="<a shape="rect" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a><br clear="none"></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div></body></html>