<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 14 (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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 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:0cm;
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;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear Richard,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">You say that "energy is never really defined in physics". Well, it is, and it is very measurable: it is called MASS, and by weighing on a proper balance one
can get a number for it. For ANY kind of energy this works perfectly. So where energy comes in different forms that may seem to have some vagueness, all forms of energy have this one thing in common: mass. The mass is always directly measurable. For whatever
property in physics, this the best you can ever get!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Then, the notion of charge and photon are old concepts and I have tried to explain it to you and the group before.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If you say CHARGED PHOTON, I see immediate violation of special relativity, a total collapse of the all of physics that we know is correct, you are implying
that Einstein is an idiot, and many more bad things. Stop it. We do not know what a photon is precisely, but certainly the word PHOTON has to do with a light-speed quantum of energy or angular momentum. LIGHT-SPEED is the important part, it does not marry
with CHARGE, which is essentially NOT light-speed. It is physically inconsistent to put the words together.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Crazy ideas are fine but they must have a t least internal consistency. Violating consistend definitions you just cannot do again and again and again, that
is for crackpots only. At some point you must stop spreading the nonsense. <i>Otherwise, you force proper scientists to take distance from you even if they are nice and open minded, because as professionals do, they must protect the values of their art.</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Cheers, Martin<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<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><span lang="DE" style="color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:navy"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Prof. Holstlaan 4</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Tel: +31 40 2747548</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Sent:</b> zaterdag 30 mei 2015 4:54<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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip and others,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">That’s what I’m proposing: the charged, spin 1/2 hbar, 0.511 MeV/c^2 (rest mass) helically circulating photon IS an electron. Clearly the charged photon is not resting (since it is always traveling at c) even when the so-called electron
is so-called resting. And a charged photon IS a photon, unless you insist that the definition (defined by who?) of a photon is one kind of uncharged, speed-of-light, spin 1 hbar boson. This is perhaps now seen as too narrow a definition of a photon. Don’t
let semantics get in the way of physics. I’d like people to get used to at least the idea of a charged photon, so that photons then could come in two varieties—uncharged photons which are bosons with spin 1 hbar, and charged photons which are fermions with
spin 1/2 hbar (there could be other kinds of photons as well.) This also could lead to further insights into Pauli’s exclusion principle which applies to fermions but not to bosons.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even though John M doesn’t agree, I think proposing that the electron is a charged photon, or that a photon is an uncharged electron, IS potentially useful information about both, even though we don’t know the full nature of either. It
could lead to further insights about electron-positron pair production from photons, and electron-positron annihilation into two or more photons, where there is likely one or more transitional states from a ‘pure’ photon to a ‘pure’ electron-positron pair
and back. The charged photon concept may also lead to further insights into alpha= e^2/(hbar c)= approx 1/137 which is the QED interaction amplitude between an electron and a photon, now seen as the interaction amplitude between a charged photon and an uncharged
photon. And it could also lead to a new interpretation of quantum mechanics as the measurable aspects of a so far undetected quantum object, the charged photon (I think Dirac would like that definition since he claimed that the electron is a speed-of-light
object but only a sub-lightspeed component of its speed can be measured.) Do the charged photon’s helical speed c, frequency f=gamma mc^2/h and wavelength h/(gamma mc) count as ‘hidden variables’ in quantum mechanics?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I also think, with John M, that there is something more fundamental than either the electron or the photon. He calls it spacetime and I call it the energy quantum. I think the energy quantum is more fundamental than spacetime—which is a
concept that stands for some kind of energy/material substance of (for John) a very high energy density. But energy is never really defined in physics except as the capacity or potential for doing work: W=Fd cos(theta), which is a practical but circular definition,
like F=ma. If we really want to get into the nature of the fundamental substance of (that which stands under and supports) the physical universe, we are (in my opinion) going to have to go beyond both the concepts of “matter" and “energy", unless the answer
is “it’s turtles all the way down”.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>
<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 2:03 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 Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>it is</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">John W.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></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>
<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 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<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
[<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="color:purple">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]<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 29, 2015 2:45 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">Chip, John and Martin,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<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 29, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Martin<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<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"><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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <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">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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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 #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">H John W<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </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">MvdM: This may be exactly right.</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>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regarding the uncertainty principle:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </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">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>
<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>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </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">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>
<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>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </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">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>
<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>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </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">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>
<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>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<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"><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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi John W and All<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<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"><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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">John D,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<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 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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<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>
<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 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<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>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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<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>
<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 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>
<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"">John D, </span><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"">I fully agree with your reply to Chip, thanks for the details!</span><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"">Please join us at the bar;-)</span><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"">Cheers three!</span><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"">Martin<br>
<br>
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</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>
<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">I’m blue, you’re black:</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">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>
<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">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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<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">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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<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">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>
<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">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>
<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">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>
<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">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>
<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">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>
<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">If space is a media, and if frame dragging does occur<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">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>
<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"><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>
<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>
<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">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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<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">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>
<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 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<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>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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi All<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 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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<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 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<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 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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</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>
<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">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>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nested set of models,<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"><image001.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">Slow trajectory lines, purple, faster trajectory lines tending toward green.<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">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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Does this match your results?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<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 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<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>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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:180.0pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:180.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1">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>
</font>
</body>
</html>