<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Very interesting insight!! Thank you Richard for once again making things clearer with your intuitive and informative analysis. This has helped me understand a bit more about the conditions of quantization.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I think you are right, basically, about the charged photon link between the uncharged photon and electron. However semantics and nomenclature keep getting in the way of communication. I think that the 0.511Mev photon cannot have charge unless <b>it is</b> an electron, with the electron spin configuration. In other words I think it cannot first be a charged photon and then become and electron. So I think that a free charged photon cannot exist, and any charged photon will also have a closed spin ½ trajectory and therefore will be a fermion instead of a photon. It may also be quite reasonable to assume that there may exist a spin ½ version of field spin topology which does not have charge.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>John W.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I admire and respect you, your intellect, and the work you have done. Our communications and exchanges are inspiring and invigorating. I have learned an immense amount from you. You have made amazing progress with finding and formulating a mathematical structure to better describe fields and to extend Maxwell’s equations so that they include the observable spin.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>One reason that I have been asking these questions about photons is that I believe that you do not quite have it right in the paper you circulated. Of course that does not mean you are wrong, but just that I do not view it the same. Unless I misread Martin’s comments, he is also saying that it is likely that photons are not self-quantized, but are just waves, quantized only by the nature of the emitters and absorbers. What I have been getting at is that the new field equations may need to take into account the difference in the field topologies and spin modes for photons and fermions, the resultant differences in forces, and in the causes for quantization.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>For example, I think that two photons CAN exist at the same place, perfectly in phase, and perfectly coherent, and add linearly without squaring, and have energy conserved. I do not think that there must be some infinitesimal difference between the two photons for this to work. You may well prove me wrong on this point, but it seems to me that there is still some work to be done regarding quantization, and the nature of “photons”.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>In fact I hope you do prove me wrong, and can show me why your photon model is the only possible correct model, and why photons should have this special treatment temporally. Maybe beers will help.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 29, 2015 2:45 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Photon<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Chip, John and Martin,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> I think you gentlemen are onto something. A photon has three related levels of quantization (E=hf, p=h/lambda and spin = hbar) — perhaps only the third is truly quantized in the sense of having a discrete value. An electron has two more levels of discrete quantization (charge and rest mass) which may be closely related to its spin 1/2 hbar. The electron’s charge may be closely related to its spin hbar/2 in the case of the electron, but not the case of the neutrino). An electron gains further levels of discrete quantization (its energy eigenvalues) by being bound in an atom. The more discrete quantum levels a quantum has, the more it is “bound” to a material condition. Can anyone clearly explain why a charged photon of spin 1/2 hbar and rest mass 0.511MeV/c^2 is not the missing link between the uncharged photon and the electron?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On May 29, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Martin<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>With your experience and depth of understanding regarding photons, and the evidence, I am of course inclined to agree with you regarding the nature of photons.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Regarding: “<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>How and why that works the same for radio waves and gamma rays, is a mystery. Well this bit is my personal opinion, of course.</span>”<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>There is perhaps a difference between the interactions we observe when using longer wavelength radio waves as compared to the particle-sized gamma rays. The radio waves are a source of field influence which can cause electron drift, just as a DC field can move electrons, but at the scale of the electron, or even the electron’s “orbit” in an atom, the frequency of the radio wave is far less “important” than the frequency of a gamma ray would be. The resonances of the particle would be less likely to be significantly influenced by the radio wave, but the radio wave would still exert a force on the electron. Radio waves are generally detected by measuring the movement of electrons in conductive materials where the electrons in the materials are fairly easy to move. It seems likely that it takes at least the motion of one electron in the transmitting antenna to induce any motion of an electron in a receiving antenna, assuming the same configuration of transmitter and receiver antennae. But the incident field on the receiving antenna may not be an integral value of “photon energy”.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Is this why you refer to a “continuum wave”? Because the absorber only uses what is can use of the available energy? So that a photon may actually contain more energy than is absorbed in an interaction?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Mark, Martin van der<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Friday, May 29, 2015 12:42 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Photon</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Dear Chip,<br>now you are really getting there for sure, those questions and statements are at the right level to begin with. But your kind of understanding certainly converges with my ideas.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>That me be good or bad, but I would judge it as good. ;-)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>See for extra comments below…</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Cheers, Martin</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=DE style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Dr. Martin B. van der Mark</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Prof. Holstlaan 4</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Tel: +31 40 2747548</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Chip Akins<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>vrijdag 29 mei 2015 15:45<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Photon</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>H John W<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you. One reason for asking the question and pursuing the thought process, was to try to further illustrate the lack of any explanation so far which supports the strict self-quantization of photons. This has been leading me to think that the source for quantization is the spin ½ configuration of fermions. (Which would act as quantizers both while emitting and absorbing). If this is true then it means that, for a photon, E=hv only holds true because of the emitter and absorber.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>MvdM: This may be exactly right.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Regarding the uncertainty principle:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If we take a single point snapshot of a sinusoidal function we are very uncertain about its frequency, the more time we spend sampling the wave the more certain we become of its frequency. Now if we are using sinusoidal waves to create particles, many of the properties of the particles will be uncertain with our measurements, because the measurements we can take disturb the system, and are only valid for brief times or spaces before the information is no longer valid, due to measurement. Because when we set up a measurement, we create conditions where discrete waves and fields will interact, creating an energy exchange which occurs in a very finite timeframe, disturbing completely what we are measuring. This correlation to the uncertainty principle is one of the reasons that I feel fields and waves are the best candidate for the fundamental makeup of particles. Fields and waves in these configurations naturally create an uncertainty in measurement which correlates exactly with the observed, understood, and measured uncertainties. The hydrogen atom is such a nice tool for modeling and understanding these issues.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>MvdM: yes and this kind of uncertainty is given by what is called the Fourier limit amended with hbar</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Of course the use of the word orbit to describe the electron’s state in an atom is too ambiguous to actually describe its state. The electron exists in a space surrounding the nucleus, and spins about it, but it’s more like the electron surrounds the nucleus and less like an orbit.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>MvdM: true, and this is why detailed orbital calculations in a photon model for the electron are totally futile; only a real theory will tell.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So what I am getting to is that the different “spin modes” of the photon and the electron are significant. I think the photon has what we may call a symmetric field spin mode, where it spins about the point between the positive and negative field lines, making it charge neutral. But the electron’s principal spin is a non-symmetrical field spin mode, with the point between the positive and negative fields displaced from the spin axis, giving it charge. Apparently this has other important effects as well. It seems this spin mode allows the electron to be quantized based on energy density, unlike the photon.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The underlying reason I am asking these questions is related to the formulation for field equations. There seems to be a difference between the behavior of the fields in the photon and the quantization behavior of the fields in fermions. The spin configuration seems to be the cause for the forces which create quantization.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>MvdM: Yes and the reason is that the electron needs binding forces and nonlinearity, the “free” photon doesn’t</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>But back to the photon: Since the photon cannot be quantized by its internal energy density, does it spin due to the spin angular momentum imparted by the emitter? Is the photon actually not internally quantized at all? That is to say, is there no inherent mechanism within the photon itself which imposed a specific quantization? Is the relationship E=hv imposed only at the emission or absorption? And therefore can we create photons without spin? Or can we create photons where E=hv is not true? And are photons really particles at all, or are they just waves, which seem like particles because of their interaction with the quantization of emitters and absorbers.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>MvdM: Good questions, I go for waves. The photon is merely a quantum of energy that is taken up by the absorber from a continuum wave. It is not a particle by it self, and doen’t need to have the machinery on-board to keep itself together or be quantized or what. It is just a Maxwell wave. But this Maxwell wave can only be emitted and absorbed according to the rules of (boundary conditions imposed by) emitter and absorber. How and why that works the same for radio waves and gamma rays, is a mystery. Well this bit is my personal opinion, of course.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>While we could view many of the question as rhetorical it seems that we may need to understand and answer them as literal. Chandra, Martin, All?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Thursday, May 28, 2015 4:29 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Photon</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Hi Chip and everyone,<br><br>Good thought but no- quantisation cannot be dependent on energy density. This is what experiment tells you - and is the beauty of experiment. Experimentally photons can have any wave-train length. The photon energy, however, is related to its frequency alone. Photons from a source have a well-defined energy only if they are pretty long (this is a consequence of the uncertainty principle). There are lots of people in the group (Martin and Chandra for two) - who know lots more about this than I do and some who perform experiments interfering, stretching and bending light.<br><br>Any proper theory needs to describe experiment - all of it - not just the bits we may happen to know about!<br><br>Regards, John</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div><div id=divRpF211216><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:purple'>general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>] on behalf of Chip Akins [</span><a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:purple'>chipakins@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Monday, May 25, 2015 4:51 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Photon</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi John W and All<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>While looking at quantization which may be caused by a twist term included with Maxwell’s equations, at least one puzzle remains unanswered for me. The nature of photons is still a bit difficult to understand. It is much easier to envision a photon of a single wavelength than a photon which is many wavelengths. If energy density is the cause for quantization (spin and frequency) it is more difficult to see how that can be so, if a photon may have an arbitrary number of cycles, but have its energy density spread out over all cycles. What do you think the likelihood is that not only frequency but also the number of cycles in a photon is quantized? If this is the case then we could still understand how the correct spin would result from energy density for each cycle. But then we would have to also address the energy density to twist relationship for single wavelength structures like the electron models we have been creating.???<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It seems evident that quantization for frequency is dependent upon energy, and I assumed it was therefore due to energy density. Which works nicely for single wavelength photons. Experiment seems to indicate that we can create photons, using various methods, which have an arbitrary number of wavelengths. How can we physically correlate this to photon frequency quantization, when the energy density of the photon has been spread out over many cycles? Is there some apparently “non-local” mechanism which couples the energy of all cycles in a single photon, and therefore helps to retain the E=hv relationship?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:46 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Hello,<br><br>Briefly - yes pi mesons are real particles. They leave nice long traces in cloud or bubble chambers. The rho is equally real.<br><br>Gluons have never been observed directly. The W and Z are sufficiently short-lived that they are observed as so-called resonances.<br><br>Regards, John.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div><div id=divRpF39921><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:purple'>general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [</span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:21 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>John D,<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> And according to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle</span></a> , the pi meson and rho meson are virtual particles for proton-neutron attraction in nuclei, as are the W and Z bosons for the weak nuclear force. Are gluons, pi mesons and W and Z particles ever real?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On May 24, 2015, at 8:58 AM, John Duffield <<a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Richard:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>See the<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Confinement" target="_blank"><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>Wikipedia gluon article</span></a><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>, note the bit that says<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><i><span lang=EN>as opposed to virtual ones found in ordinary hadrons.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></i><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>The gluons in a proton are virtual. As in not real. And LOL, perhaps the same is true of the quarks!<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>John D<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>24 May 2015 16:12<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip, Martin, John D and others,<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> 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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On May 24, 2015, at 7:06 AM, Mark, Martin van der <<a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>John D, </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>I fully agree with your reply to Chip, thanks for the details!</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Please join us at the bar;-)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Cheers three!</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Martin<br><br>Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br>Op 24 mei 2015 om 15:56 heeft John Duffield <</span><a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>> het volgende geschreven:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;word-spacing:0px'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Chip:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I’m blue, you’re black:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If space is a media, what would we perceive which is different from space being empty?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>That popular belief was a cargo-cult belief, because Einstein made it clear in his 1920 </span><a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22neither%20homogeneous%22" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>Leyden Address</span></a><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>that space was the “aether” of general relativity, and space was not empty.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Some would say there is no perceptible difference. But is that precisely true?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>No. Like Einstein said in<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>1929</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>, a field is a state of space.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>There’s also the<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>CMB reference frame</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>. 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><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>One thing which would alter the ability to test this is a gross frame dragging of space around massive bodies or concentrations of mass.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>See<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/galaxy_sized_twist/" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>the asymmetric Kerr metric as a source of CP violation</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>. It’s to do with galactic frame-dragging.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If space is a media, and if frame dragging does occur<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><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=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I prefer it too, and so did Einstein. See<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/time-explained-t3.html" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>Time Explained</span></a><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>and<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>A World Without Time: the forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Is time truly a fourth dimension at the lowest level of analysis of space?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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=apple-converted-space> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>John D</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Chip Akins<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>24 May 2015 14:24<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi All<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>We are working on the foundations of physics. Studying and trying to decipher the result of experiment in a causal manner.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Friday, May 22, 2015 8:02 AM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Hello Chip,<br><br>Have been meaning to say for some time: you are producing some beautiful models.<br><br>Would be good to talk at some stage.<br><br>Regards. John (W)</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div><div id=divRpF393921><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:purple'>general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>] on behalf of Chip Akins [</span><a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:purple'>chipakins@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Friday, May 22, 2015 1:59 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Sorry I was modeling what I though was the spin 1 photon model of the electron.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This is what I perceive to be your spin ½ photon model of the electron to be with velocity. Same velocity steps as before.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Nested set of models,<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image001.png><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Slow trajectory lines, purple, faster trajectory lines tending toward green.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Here is the code for the electron’s reference frame for the above graphic:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>X(ii)=Roc*(1/y^2+(1/y)*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc))*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc);</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Y(ii)=Roc*(1/y^2+(1/y)*cosd(y*c*(t)/Roc))*sind(y*c*(t)/Roc);</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Z(ii)=(Roc/y)*sind(y*c*(t)/Roc);</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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”. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>And the model is of course not really spherical.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Does this match your results?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Can you share the graphics model you have done?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Friday, May 22, 2015 7:31 AM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>John D., Chip and Andrew,<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> 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). <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On May 22, 2015, at 12:06 AM, John Duffield <<a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>David:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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=apple-converted-space> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Chip:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><image005.jpg></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65335/how-do-moving-charges-produce-magnetic-fields" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>explain the magnetic field around the current-in-the-wire using length contraction</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>, but IMHO that’s a fairy tale, and I prefer a<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184055/atomic-explanation-of-magnetic-field/184079?noredirect=1#comment388570_184079" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>“screw” answer</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>John D</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></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><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Chip Akins<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>21 May 2015 21:39<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi John D<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Regarding…<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Sorry, I don’t think that can be right because you could go past an electron at .9988c.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I think Martin was onto this aspect already.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image006.png><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The earlier electron model graphics are created from the math that Richard developed for his spin ½ electron.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></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><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>John Duffield<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:15 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Chip:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Sorry, I don’t think that can be right because you could go past an electron at .9988c.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Andrew:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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=apple-converted-space> </span><i>were</i><span class=apple-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=apple-converted-space> </span><i>I<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></i>was the one moving, and that<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>you’re</i><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>length-contracted. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>John</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></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><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Chip Akins<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>21 May 2015 17:52<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Andrew<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Images from the electron’s reference frame.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image007.png><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The small grey sphere in the center is the electron model for 0.9988c.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So in this model the electron shrinks in all directions, but remains principally spherical when viewed from the electron’s reference frame.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Andrew Meulenberg<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:15 AM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Dear Chip,<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I learn something new every time. However, it may not be true.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal 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?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Andrew<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></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><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So it is a bit more difficult to visualize exactly what is going on from the graphics with velocity.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>We increase the velocity is in steps from<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>zero through 0.9988c.</b><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>From the Z axis the illustration looks like:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image008.jpg><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Showing the reduced radius with velocity.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>But when we look at the model slightly off axis (Z axis) we see this:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image009.jpg><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></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><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [mailto:</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>general-bounces+chipakins</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>=</span><a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:29 AM</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Electron Torus<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip,<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> 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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On May 20, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip,<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Nice graphics!<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> 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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> 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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> 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? <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On May 19, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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)<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image001.jpg><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>(Top View from Z axis)<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image002.jpg><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>(45 degree elevation view)<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image004.jpg><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Photon field amplitude is shown as a cosine function of wavelength/2.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></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><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:06 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip,<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> 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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On May 5, 2015, at 6:07 AM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>How do these look?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image003.png><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image001.jpg><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 04, 2015 1:18 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Chip,<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> 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?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></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><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image004.png><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image005.png><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></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><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>general-bounces+chipakins</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>=</span><a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 04, 2015 12:19 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Chip,<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> 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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On May 4, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Here you go:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image001.png><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image002.png><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></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><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 04, 2015 10:43 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electron Torus</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Chip,<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Both tori should be symmetrical above and below the z-axis and center on z=0.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></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><p class=MsoNormal>On May 4, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image001.jpg><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Viewed from the Z axis:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image002.jpg><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>And from the equatorial plane:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image003.jpg><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></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><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#954F72'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, May 03, 2015 11:07 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] position</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip and all,<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> 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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954F72'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954F72'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>mules333@gmail.com</span></a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;word-spacing:0px'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at</span><a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>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;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray'>The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.<br></span><image001.png><image001.png><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>