<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=ks_c_5601-1987"><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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
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
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-style-priority:99;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
span.emailstyle19
{mso-style-name:emailstyle19;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
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 style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear David and John W,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>First I will address <b>David¡¯s</b> question. You said ¡°</span><span style='font-family:"Times",serif;color:#C00000;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Now there is a problem....</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:#C00000;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>= k</span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#C00000;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>¥ë</span><span style='font-family:"Times",serif;color:#C00000;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>c2 is not defined</span><span style='font-family:"Times",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>¡± I apologize but </span><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I have defined this and other symbols previously in the ¡°foundation¡± paper attached to 5 previous emails. </span><span style='font-family:"Times",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I use the symbol <i><s>¥ë</s></i><sub>c</sub> </span><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>for the reduced Compton <span style='color:black'>wavelength and <i>¥ë</i><sub>c</sub> for the Compton wavelength. Therefore: </span></span><i><s><span style='font-family:"Times",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>¥ë</span></s></i><sub><span style='font-family:"Times",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>c</span></sub><span style='font-family:"Times",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> =<i>¥ë<sub>c</sub>/</i>2¥ð = </span><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>©¤</span></i><i><span style='font-family:"Times",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>/mc </span></i><span style='font-family:"Times",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>=<i> c/</i></span><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>¥ø<sub>c</sub>.</span></i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> Other points in your letter will be covered in the next section. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><b><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>John W.</span></b><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> Thank you for your lengthy response. I do not take offense and I appreciate the time that you have devoted to the lengthy answer. My first comment is that your response covered many related subjects, but it did not address my specific question. I have generated the following equations which connect the electrostatic force (<i>F<sub>E</sub></i> or <i>F<sub>e</sub></i>); the gravitational force <i>F<sub>g</sub></i>; a particle¡¯s reduced Compton wavelength <i><s>¥ë</s></i><sub>c</sub>; a particle¡¯s internal energy <i>E<sub>i</sub></i> = <i>mc<sup>2</sup> = ©¤¥ø<sub>c</sub></i> ; and a particle¡¯s Schwarzschild radius <i>R<sub>s</sub></i> (see note) The following equations are shown below and also are in the attached PDF in case the email does not reproduce the equations correctly. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:115%'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>(</span><b><i><u><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>F</span></u></i></b><sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>g</span></sub><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>N</span></i><sup><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>2</span></sup><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>)</span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> = (</span><b><i><u><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>F</span></u></i></b><i><sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>E</span></sub></i><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>N<sup>2</sup></span></i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>)<sup>2</sup><i> </i>=</span><b><i><u><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> E</span></u></i></b><i><sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>i</span></sub></i><sup><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>4 </span></sup><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> <i>F<sub>g</sub>/F<sub>E</sub>N = F<sub>E</sub>N/F<sub>p</sub></i> <sup><o:p></o:p></sup></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:115%'><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>F<sub>g</sub>/F<sub>E</sub> = R<sub>s</sub>/<s>¥ë</s></span></i><sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>c</span></sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> <i>R<sub>s</sub><s>¥ë</s><sub>c</sub> = L<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> </i> </span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'> </span><b><i><u><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>R</span></u></i></b><sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>s</span></sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'> = 1/</span><b><i><s><u><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>¥ë</span></u></s></i></b><sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>c</span></sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'> </span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%'><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>F<sub>g</sub>/F<sub>E</sub></span></i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'> = </span><b><i><s><u><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>¥ë</span></u></s></i></b><sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>c</span></sub><b><sup><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>– </span></sup></b><sup><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>2 </span></sup><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>= </span><b><i><u><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>¥ø</span></u></i></b><sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>c</span></sub><sup><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>2</span></sup><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'> </span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>= <b><i><u>E</u></i></b><sub>i </sub><sup>2</sup></span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>In the above <i>R<sub>s</sub> </i></span><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>¡Õ</span></i><i><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> Gm/c<sup>2</sup></span></i><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>. My particle model has dipole waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light within a volume with radius <i><s>¥ë</s></i><sub>c</sub>. Such a structure is maximally rotating and has a Schwarzschild radius half of the Schwarzschild radius for non-rotating mass. The underlined symbols such as</span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'> </span><b><i><u><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>¥ø</span></u></i></b><sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>c </span></sub><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>and</span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'> <b><i><u>E</u></i></b><sub>i </sub></span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> are dimensionless Planck units. The symbol <i>F<sub>E</sub></i> is the electrostatic force between two Planck charges (the basis of natural units). To convert this to the force of two particles with charge <i>e</i> use <i>F<sub>E</sub> = F<sub>e</sub></i>¥á<sup>-1</sup>. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The point is that these equations are actual relationships between the forces. They should not be considered disruptive to physics. They should be welcomed as new insights which adds to our knowledge. The best part is that they imply a problem exists with the <b>physical interpretation</b> of the equations of physics. You claim that I am attempting to disrupt half of physics. Also you say, </span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#C00000;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>¡°</span><span style='color:#C00000;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I do not really understand, also, why you want to throw out the concept of a virtual particle¡±. </span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Neither of these are true. I am only attempting to replace the physical interpretation of what is happening on the quantum mechanical scale of physics. The equations of QM are unchanged. It is just the many conceptual mysteries of QM that exist with the current physical interpretation that I want to replace with a new model which eliminates many of the mysteries. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>In this email, I only want to eliminate the concept of virtual photon messenger particles. I embrace the concept of virtual photon pairs and virtual particle pairs that are continuously being formed and annihilated in spacetime. In fact, I explain and quantify the distortion of spacetime that produces these effects. I have wave amplitudes, sizes and frequencies which produce these effects. This is the activity with Planck length and Planck time displacements of spacetime which are responsible for the tremendous energy density of spacetime that you oppose. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The physical interpretation which requires virtual photon messenger particles has many flaws. For example, there is the question of exactly how attraction is accomplished. I know that there are some attempts at explanations, but they have flaws. Also, there is a problem about how many messenger particles propagating at the speed of light surrounded an electron. If another electron passed by at almost the speed of light there was not enough time to send out new virtual photons propagating at the speed of light to interact with it. Only the virtual photon messenger particles which are already propagating through the surrounding space could make the magnetic field perceived by the other rapidly moving electron. In my book I carry this to an extreme and show that weak magnetic fields must be capable of generating tremendous forces without enough time to communicate back to the source of the magnetic field.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>However, those problems pale in comparison to the problems created by the equations that I have derived. Clearly both the electrostatic force and the gravitational force are connected when these forces are expressed using the particle¡¯s natural unit of length which is its reduced Compton wavelength <i><s>¥ë</s></i><sub>c</sub>. Can virtual photon messenger particles be saved by assuming they have a wavelength equal to the particle¡¯s Compton wavelength? Do virtual photons also carry the gravitational force? Do virtual photons have an amplitude which scales inversely with <i>N</i>, the number of reduced Compton wavelengths? Does the amplitude of virtual photons scale with <i>A<sub>¥â</sub> </i>=<i> (L<sub>p</sub>/¥ë<sub>c</sub>)(¥ë<sub>c</sub>/r) </i>=<i> L<sub>p</sub>/r</i> ? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>All of these properties must be assigned to virtual photon messenger particles in order to explain these equations. When you have done all of this, it is much easier to just declare that the electrostatic force and gravity is conveyed by standing waves in spacetime at the particle¡¯s Compton wavelength. Everything fits. In fact, this model <b>predicted</b> these equations. The concept of virtual photons has not been eliminated, they just do not transfer the electrostatic force or gravity. I also give standing wave amplitudes for the waves that create both the electric field and the gravitational field. This amplitude gives the correct energy density of both the electric field and the gravitational field. To my knowledge, there are no equations which physically describe the virtual photon messenger particles which permit the calculation the energy density of the electric field that surrounds a charged particle. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I admit that these equations contain the fine structure constant. You do not demand that QED must first derive the fine structure constant before this constant can be used in QED equations. Similarly, I should not have to derive the fine structure constant before I can use it. I think that my model gives some new insights into how it might be derived. For now my equations work perfectly if I use Planck charge which has a coupling constant of 1. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>You bring up many more points, but they will have to wait for another day.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>John M. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:blue;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><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 style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 01, 2015 3:31 AM<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><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Dear John M,<br><br>Sorry for this but I think you just went a little bit too far in throwing out half of physics ... I¡¯m probably going to regret this but I have to say a few things ¡¦ let me apologize to you in advance (and at the end). </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I too think the electrostatic force is a wave-based phenomenon. It is a wave based phenomenon in QED as well. I too, think there are things wrong with QED. Things such as predicting a ridiculously high energy density for the vacuum, for example. We are not talking about whether or not it is wave based – just about what is waving and what it is waving in. I agree there is not such a thing as ¡°virtual photon¡± all by itself. Did you not understand my argument? I am just explaining how the process works in one of the current main theories of physics. I do not really understand, also, why you want to throw out the concept of a virtual particle – when this is where you started with you model, effectively. This is not an either-or situation. A proper theory should be consistent with a field based electromagnetism and with quantum electrodynamics based on (virtual) particle exchange. Both.<br><br>What you seem to be saying is that virtual particle exchange – the very basis of quantum electrodynamics - is wrong. This seems a bit strange to me since it is the virtual sea of these QED particles, nota bene, that gave rise to the huge energy density of the vacuum you have taken as your starting point. You do say ¡°this seems to be necessary¡±, but you do not, however, use any of that method of calculation or the machinery of QED, merely take it instead that the vacuum is a smooth, undetectable medium with the energy density taken from that number, (which is anyway not usual QED but the most extreme case under the (Casimir) assumption of an active vacuum). You seem to think this is an experimental given when it is actually a very controversial calculation for which there are many versions, differing by scores of orders of magnitude. As I mentioned above- most people hold this up as an example of what is wrong with QED (perhaps) .. not the existence, per se, of virtual particles in interactions. You have taken this huge energy density (in a highly modified version) as your starting point.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>It is perhaps worth noting that, in your model as it stands, you could take any other (big) number for that starting density and get similar results. In fact you could choose a density such that the observed charge fitted perfectly. You could choose to start by putting in half Plank's constant instead of a whole Plank's constant. These would get you closer to a ¡°result¡± so why not?<br><br>Now all of this would be fine if it then led to a theory which either reproduced the (extremely well verified experimentally) predictions of usual QED – or derived QED itself - or at least did not interfere with QED. Things such as running coupling constants for charge, the anomalous magnetic moment g-2, the Lamb shift - a whole slew of solid experimental results explained by the theory. I have not seen such a theory from you – even if you were to fix the charge to come out exactly. Perhaps this is contained in the attachment not sent with your email. What I have seen are simple calculations based on an underlying elastic medium with energy density leading to a universe many (many) orders of magnitude larger than that which is observed. You seem to take as an axiom that, although this is an energy density or a mass density it does not behave as a usual energy or a usual mass. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>This is good to think about. A completely new kind of very dense stuff and the possible consequences thereof - but it does not make it immediately a replacement for QED. It seems especially ironic to me that you seem to be attacking the very concept that gives rise to your own starting point. Thoughts of the Oozlum bird come to mind.<br><br>Moving on to your model and to your predictions - I have not seen any new differential equations from you such as the Schroedinger or Maxwell equations. You do not show any matrix elements for transition probabilities. You claim to calculate many fundamental things but, except for your calculation of charge (which is anyway a couple of orders of magnitude out and puts another constant in) I¡¯m not sure at all ( even after reading much of your magnum opus) what these are. You claim that the electric field is a stress in spacetime, but you do not calculate why fields are as big as they are but just assume you can put them in the size that they are - completely independently of the properties of the underlying medium you propose. You note that the EM and Gravitational and Planck scales are approximately in line along a log-log plot (what¡¯s a couple of orders of magnitude when you have hundreds of them) – but remember the Planck scale is derived as a limit for QM and Gravity and has geometrical (squared) factors built in. Given that EM and QM are related (both can be derived from the same underlying principle as David has noted) – that the Planck length limit lies on this line and that these differ by an exponent is not then surprising at all. Also lots of things lie at roughly the half way point between the very big and the very small– Humans sizes, for example. So what? Martin has previously plotted dozens of these and looked at trends of certain types of things. I hope he will show this in August. A rough conjunction of one point on a log-log plot is, anyway, not an immediate reason for ditching half of current science, at least not for me.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>So what else is new? Have you calculated any cross-sections? any particle masses, Plank's constant, the radiation law? Any fundamental constants? If it comes to that: where do such things as Newton¡¯s laws come from? Why do things just keep moving endlessly through such a very dense medium in space? If the medium, indeed, exerts forces on particles to confine them in free space, as you suggest, why can we not observe any of these forces? You seem (to me) to be arguing along the lines of ¡°you just can¡¯t¡±. In quantum mechanics one observes things to be jiggling about, like it or not, with certain sizes and momenta or energies and frequencies. In your model the underlying medium jiggles .. but at length scales far smaller than will ever be observed by a physical instrument. If it were to jiggle on a quantum scale whole universal big bangs would be breaking out everywhere at the subatomic level. Needless to say – this is not consistent with current experiment! - Oops – so we have to ditch QED, and aspects of QM and even consider modifying Newton¡¯ s laws. One needs to take the consequences of your starting assumptions and look at them dispassionately. Do they fit with what you observe in nature?</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Ok my arguments about QM and Newtons laws are a little facetious. It is perfectly possible that energies and fields arise from the properties of space-time. Indeed I believe this so much I have posted a paper about it to the group! I just do not see the net benefit of the raft of your starting assumptions in terms of a cost-benefit analysis.<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'>When you start proposing to throw out such things as QED, however, you need to replace the theory with something that works as well, preferably better. It is not sufficient to calculate just one parameter – and leave the rest of science in ruins. If you are right we will not be able to calculate much of anything at all!</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Quite apart from throwing out QED, on a more personal level you have criticized us for wasting our time and not being at the proper level. You have dismissed all our models as ¡°castles in the air¡±. You have lumped all of us in the same boat, assumed we all think with one voice and have just the one model, and then criticized your perception of that (oversimplified) model directly and in general. When challenged on aspects of this you have taken this as a criticism of yourself. Rather than apologizing for not having at first realized that we may be very different individuals, introduced to each other a couple of months before, most of whom have never met each other and each with different models, you defended your own ignorance. You decry us for wasting time thinking about such things as obviously useless as knots. This is not a criticism of a specific aspect of a model such as you ask for here, which could be useful, but just a general cry of ¡°you are all fools¡±. Knots are not the answer. Other things have been direct attacks on our professionalism, as a group. Why do you not use Microsoft word as I do? – for example (for the record I do not because it is not portable from version to version as are more professional tools such as LaTex). I have Word files Word cannot read. My (Microsoft) web browser does not support certain kinds of maths text (as you noted). My advice to the young folks of the group would be – Stay away from Microsoft Word if you possibly can! (Or at least save your important stuff in a different format if you want to keep it).</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>You have apologized for certain things, but only when you think you have made a fool of yourself -not in the way you have denigrated others in particular or the group in general. I think you should think about this.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I think there is much of value in what you are doing – but one should remember the need to respect others as well. I think that it is bold indeed to consider the consequences of space being so energy-dense. This may indeed prove to be so – (even if my personal preference is for a precisely zero energy universe at the moment). I am open to persuasion on this point. Not everyone knows everything yet. I know I certainly do not. I have learned a lot from the group so far, but I do not agree precisely with anyone in it yet, not even Martin with whom I have worked for a quarter of a century.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>You have come into this group but have not really given many constructive remarks on our work or on the project, but have rather tried to move the discussion to such areas as gravitation and the Planck length and onto attacking physics as it is generally understood. You have made no comments at all about my work, for example, only presuming it is something it is not or responding when I have tried to explain what is usual in certain aspects of existing theoretical physics, which you have then attacked strongly. On the other hand you have complained that one of your posts gained no response after a day! <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I do not want to waste my precious time defending QED. I want to work on building new, constructive, theories, not defending science as it stands. You¡¯re making me respond to things off the thrust of this group. This is absorbing time and energy better spent elsewhere. This is not good. I need to finish my marking before the deadline tomorrow and start working on my own papers!</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I know I am being somewhat hypocritical here – in that I am criticizing you for criticizing others, for which I apologize again. I feel that someone has to say it though as all this is absorbing effort better spent on making proper progress elsewhere.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Regards, </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>John Williamson.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><hr size=3 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF418093><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Macken [john@macken.com]<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 01, 2015 8:23 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Photon</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>Hello All,</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>John W. has just said, ¡°</span><span style='color:black'>In QED this value, for the virtual photons responsible for electromagnetic attraction or repulsion may be positive (repulsion) or negative (attraction).</span><span style='color:blue'>¡± My question is: Who in this group believes that the electrostatic force is transferred by virtual photons? I thought that the various equations I previously presented (also attached) showing the relationship between the electrostatic force, the gravitational force and a particle¡¯s reduced Compton wavelength made a good argument that the electrostatic force must be a wave-based phenomenon. If some people are unconvinced, I would like to hear the reasoning which allows virtual photons to be compatible with the equations quoted. Hearing this reasoning would be very helpful to me since I plan to incorporate these equations and a discussion of the incompatibility with virtual photons in a future paper.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>John M.</span><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;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, May 31, 2015 5:43 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Photon</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>Dear all,<br><br>I have the feeling that you are getting mixed up with splitting things into other things as though this means something. Martin is right. Light remains light. A photon goes from emitter to absorber --- boom. If light is in a box it remains light. It continues, in flight to be rest-massless. It is the whole system that exhibits the PROPERTIES of a rest mass, by virtue of the confinement. <br><br>The rest-mass is DEFINED as the square root of the 4-momentum squared (in proper units). For any particle this is just what you get by looking at it at rest. This is a Lorentz invariant quantity. For a particle some of this may be rest-mass mass, some confined field, some the confinement mechanism itself (whatever that is). It all appears on the weighing scale.<br><br>In QED this value, for the virtual photons responsible for electromagnetic attraction or repulsion may be positive (repulsion) or negative (attraction). Yes, negative mass! This does not mean there is an actual little lump of negative mass that has just come about. You need to consider the whole process not keep trying to split it into bits like lego. The value is defined by the properties of the light AND the box. For virtual particle exchange attraction one can also see it as field cancellation. That is the negative bit. It isn't magic. Just because you can write down an equation for mass does not make it appear as a bit of mass with a label "mass" on it!<br><br>Indeed, as light slows in a crystal there is an energy associated with the photon, but equally with the (partial) confinement of it by the crystal. It makes no sense to ascribe this wholly to the one or the other. If the light circulates with total internal reflection you could weigh it on a scale. If it was a short laser pulse the crystal would jump up and down as it went round and round - in principle you could measure this too.<br><br>It is just confusing yourself to insist on things becoming other things, with other properties. Analogies are nice, but not if they confuse you. A zig-zagging photon, free to escape up or down, is confined slightly differently to a wholly confined one. This is due to the properties of the confinement- not the properties of the photon. If its wholly confined - and smooth you will weigh the whole photon energy as rest mass, even though the photon is not itself rest-massive.<br><br>Regards, John W.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center'><span style='color:black'><hr size=3 width="100%" align=center></span></div></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>