<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
@font-face
{font-family:Times}
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}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
p
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
span.emailstyle19
{font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none}
span.EmailStyle21
{font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in}
-->
</style><style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</style><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</style><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</style>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Dear John M,</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">I am delighted that you are not offended.
You have seemed very sensitive in some of your earlier emails, taking offence, even at my lack of understanding about something. I agree: I find it extremely offensive that I do not understand everything! The previous email was mostly because of my worry that
you may be distracting others from productive lines of thought as well as myself and getting people onto dead-end lines of thought.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">I had decided that there was no way of
entering into a robust discussion of physics with you without causing offence at every turn. It seemed to me at one point that to tease anything out of you one would need to tread very carefully- or simply not bother.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>I am relieved that this is not so. I look forwards to ripping into the fundamentals of physics with you and others at the conference, and in the stuff below. The discussion below will, accordingly, become far more robust. I am not going to apologise
for this as this is the true sign of respect.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Yes I am perfectly aware that I did not answer your question about QED. You must admit that there are a few of mine (most!) that you have not yet answered
about your own work, let alone a well-established theory that is the subject of many fat and old textbooks ( I recommend Landau and Lifshitz). Taking time off from my own work to answer this question for you should then come very low on my priority list. You
may think that your work is the most important aspect for progressing the whole of physics and the most advanced point within our little group, but this is not the case from my perspective (my work is much more important, of course!). As to whether I can help?
Well I have taken postgraduate courses on QED, have written programs to implement QED calculations professionally, have done a PhD on the basis of which QED was the most solid foundation and have (co) authored scores of papers on the subject in the peer-reviewed
press – so yes – I think so. I am not the best to do so as I am not a QED theorist per-se. Also it has been over three decades, so I am a bit rusty even on what I used to know, but I’ll give it a try. Of course the answer will be short – do not have the time
or the energy to go into any proper detail at the moment. I do not think QED is, by itself, in any way the whole answer. I have also not even finished all of my marking responsibilities, the “deadline” for which expired yesterday. I did manage to get everything
in over which I had control, though, and am now waiting on stuff from others. </span>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">This means that I am no longer able to fulfill my prime purpose: that of a marking
machine! I'll have to find something else to do then so ...</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Before I go on to outline an explanation, I think writing a paper about the (non)
existence of virtual photons is a bit futile and would be a waste of your, not inconsiderable, talents. I hope the answer below makes it clear enough why this would be so.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">The virtual photon appears a concept within the theory of QED. It must be distinguished
from the concept of the photon – considered by many to be a real particle (but that is a discussion which is already active within this group). What is it in the context of an electromagnetic scattering experiment?</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">There is nothing faster-than-light about it - that is just a misconception caused
by poor thinking. Virtual photons are actually operative only when things hit other things. You need to do the calculations in QED local to the particle interaction only, otherwise one gets into the silly numbers you seem to feel you need to start with. Only
if you look only locally at the limited interaction between the two existing particles do you get the right answers (and they are then very very right indeed!).</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">If you have a charge-charge elastic scattering (electron-electron or electron-proton)
for example, then if you measure the incident 4-momenta and the outgoing 4-momenta of the particles, by subtracting one from the other one obtains the experimentally-measured 4-momentum transfer. This 4-momentum transfer is ascribed, in QED (strictly, for
an elastic, purely electromagnetic scattering event – although the same concept is used in inelastic scattering events as well) to the virtual photon 4-momentum. This 4-momentum transfer is considered, within the theory of QED, to be purely electromagnetic
(what else could it be? - well it could have a weak current component and then one gets into Weinberg-Salam (also very nice)). This is, in QED, the base of the concept of a virtual photon (no less and no more) and is in sharp contrast to the usual concept
of a (so called real) photon as a lightspeed bullet. <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Square this measured quantity. This is the 4-momentum transfer squared. Depending
on the units one can give this a proper dimension of energy squared or mass squared. Taking the latter, and applying it to any isolated particle, one obtains, by taking the square root, the invariant (rest) mass of the particle, whatever the momentum and whatever
the frame. Performing this calculation on the 4-momentum transfer squared itself and ascribing this to the properties of the virtual photon one obtains the “mass” of the virtual photon. Although it has the properties (and dimensions) of an invariant rest mass,
needless to say (though I said so in my previous mail as well), this is not a mass one could isolate and weigh on some scales. The value of this “mass” is either positive or negative depending on the sign (attractive or repulsive) of the scattering event.
Simple. That is all. Well … except for the calculation of the higher order effects called radiative corrections – but these are at least a factor of ten-thousand times smaller than the leading order term so forget about them for the moment. The concept is
anyway - very well defined experimentally. This is what counts.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">I do not see how arguing against, what is essentially the concept of 4-momentum transfer,
does anything to "explain the mysteries of physics". This is, pretty much, the essence of all that you know, all that you measure, in an elastic scattering experiment. The beauty of QED is that, using it, it gets the scattering probability right to eight decimal
places. To compete with this you need to match this - not merely hand-wave and say another theory is roughly in the right ballpark to an order of magnitude or two. While your model may be extended to match this precision in the future it simply does not do
so now. Am I wrong?</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Personally, I think that QED is fundamentally correct in that the intermediary for
charge interaction (themselves electromagnetic for me) is an electromagnetic interaction. I think that QED is incomplete, however, precisely in that it predicts ridiculously high mass and energy densities in the vacuum, which are not observed. This is part
of your starting point - and where we currently differ. </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">One does need to impose a limit – but to agree with experiment this is far off the
Plank scale. Dirac proposed, at one stage, precisely half what you call the reduced Compton wavelength – which comes close to giving the correct magnitude and removing the (terrible) need for renormalisation. We could talk (at great length) about this stuff
– I hesitate to bring it up at all -but, for me, it is irrelevant, fruitless and has already been done. The theme here is not to revisit General relativity or Dirac quantum mechanics.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>We need to stop messing about at the edges of what has already been done and get down to creating a proper new theory.
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">For me space-time has to be (amost infinitely) stiff and strong, but certainly not
massive or energetic. If a proposed mass or energy density does not have the properties of a mass or energy then it is simply, for me, not a mass or energy density. For me this is simply the end of argument. It could be something else - but if it is then say
that. I also do not think there is some sharp cutoff (and I do not think you need the back-stop - the arguments about the difference in exponents still stands) – at the Plank scale or anywhere else, where space suddenly breaks. I do not see why one feels
the need for such a limit. It is a limit of the theories (both General relativity and quantum mechanics) That is a problem for the theories not for reality – and shows up only our lack of imagination. It is not a problem for nature itself.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">The mis-conceptions tend to occur only if one insists (wrongly) that, because we have
a concept for something one is claiming that it is a thing that actually exists, which one can isolate and point to. Just because one has a word "Dragon" for example, does not mean that Dragons exist (even if I may be one!).</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">As to the futility of such an argument: within the field, the difference between a
photon and a virtual-photon is well known. The first is thought to be a particle, the second a property of the electromagnetic interaction. The operative word here is "virtual". These are merely a convenient shorthand within the context of the theory. If you
want to argue against this or that theory (and I certainly do not – I want to make up new ones which actually work), then one needs to start at least by understanding the theory. It took me years to understand Green Schwartz and Witten's book on string theories,
for example, before I understood how fundamentally vacuous they are. Complete and utter waste of years of my life. QED is far more useful and practical - but still limited both conceptually and in the contradiction of some of its predictions with manifest
experiment. </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>If pressed, a high energy physicist will admit
that all real<a name="_GoBack"></a> “photons” are an eentsy bit virtual – less so as the distance between emitter and absorber increases. Even if you were to succeed in proving the non-existence of virtual photons (as messenger particles) outside of the interaction,
you will only be confirming what everyone in the field thinks they know already.
</span><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">There you go. Not very deep and not very mathematical but you still owe
me a beer for, potentially, saving you a lot of unneccesary work!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Regards, John W.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</style></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">P.S. – while I am still in full flow … I also do not think the usual Plank units are
proper “natural units” in that, for one thing, the base angular momentum taken is manifestly silly. Why take as a base hbar when something half as big is better defined? hbar/2 is the proper, well defined, quantized spin of a fermion. Especially daft as there
is immediately a controversy in the Photonics community about the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>proper spin of the photon, why it has only two spin state projections and, indeed, whether such a thing exists at all! Just because any units are thought to be common knowledge does not make them the right choice! I think you tie your mast a flag which
will just lead to problems down the line. Using hbar/2 will solve some of your difficulties and bring you closer to that which is measured (though not all the way).
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US"></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US"></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF307589"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> 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 8:33 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Photon<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Dear David and John W,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">First I will address <b>David’s</b> question. You said “</span><span style="font-family:"Times",serif; color:#C00000">Now there is a problem....</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:#C00000">=
k</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif; color:#C00000">λ</span><span style="font-family:"Times",serif; color:#C00000">c2 is not defined</span><span style="font-family:"Times",serif">” I apologize but
</span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif; color:black">I have defined this and other symbols previously in the “foundation” paper attached to 5 previous emails.
</span><span style="font-family:"Times",serif">I use the symbol <i><s>λ</s></i><sub>c</sub>
</span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">for the reduced Compton <span style="color:black">
wavelength and <i>λ</i><sub>c</sub> for the Compton wavelength. Therefore: </span>
</span><i><s><span style="font-family:"Times",serif; color:black">λ</span></s></i><sub><span style="font-family:"Times",serif; color:black">c</span></sub><span style="font-family:"Times",serif; color:black"> =<i>λ<sub>c</sub>/</i>2π =
</span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif; color:black">ħ</span></i><i><span style="font-family:"Times",serif; color:black">/mc
</span></i><span style="font-family:"Times",serif; color:black">=<i> c/</i></span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif; color:black">ω<sub>c</sub>.</span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif; color:black"> Other points in your letter
will be covered in the next section. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; background:white">
<b><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif; color:black">John W.</span></b><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif; color:black"> 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>λ</s></i><sub>c</sub>; a particle’s internal energy <i>E<sub>i</sub></i> = <i>
mc<sup>2</sup> = ħω<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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif; color:black"> </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">(</span><b><i><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">F</span></u></i></b><sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">g</span></sub><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">N</span></i><sup><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">2</span></sup><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">)</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">
= (</span><b><i><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">F</span></u></i></b><i><sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">E</span></sub></i><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">N<sup>2</sup></span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">)<sup>2</sup><i>
</i>=</span><b><i><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> E</span></u></i></b><i><sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">i</span></sub></i><sup><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">4
</span></sup><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"> <i>F<sub>g</sub>/F<sub>E</sub>N = F<sub>E</sub>N/F<sub>p</sub></i>
<sup></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">F<sub>g</sub>/F<sub>E</sub> = R<sub>s</sub>/<s>λ</s></span></i><sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">c</span></sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">
<i>R<sub>s</sub><s>λ</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"> </span><b><i><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">R</span></u></i></b><sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">s</span></sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"> = 1/</span><b><i><s><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">λ</span></u></s></i></b><sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">c</span></sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">
</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"></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">F<sub>g</sub>/F<sub>E</sub></span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"> =
</span><b><i><s><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">λ</span></u></s></i></b><sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">c</span></sub><b><sup><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">–
</span></sup></b><sup><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">2
</span></sup><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">=
</span><b><i><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">ω</span></u></i></b><sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">c</span></sub><sup><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">2</span></sup><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">
</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">=
<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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif; color:black"> </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">In the above <i>R<sub>s</sub>
</i></span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif; color:black">≡</span></i><i><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; color:black"> Gm/c<sup>2</sup></span></i><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; color:black">. My particle
model has dipole waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light within a volume with radius
<i><s>λ</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">
</span><b><i><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">ω</span></u></i></b><sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">c
</span></sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">and</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
<b><i><u>E</u></i></b><sub>i </sub></span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; color:black"> 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>α<sup>-1</sup>. </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"> </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">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">“</span><span style="color:#C00000">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">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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; line-height:106%">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; line-height:106%">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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.
</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"> </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">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.</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"> </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">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>λ</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>β</sub> </i>=<i> (L<sub>p</sub>/λ<sub>c</sub>)(λ<sub>c</sub>/r) </i>=<i> L<sub>p</sub>/r</i> ?
</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"> </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">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. </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"> </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">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.
</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"> </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">You bring up many more points, but they will have to wait for another day.</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"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; color:black">John M.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; color:blue"> </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">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> 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</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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"></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"></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"></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"></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"></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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </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"></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"></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"></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"></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!
</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"></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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Regards, </span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">John Williamson.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center" align="center">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; color:black">
<hr align="center" size="3" width="100%">
</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">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif; color:black"> 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"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">Hello All,</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue"> </span><span style="color:black"></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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue"> </span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">John M.</span><span style="color:black"></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" target="_blank"><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"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </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"></span></p>
<div>
<div style="margin-bottom:10.0pt">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center" align="center">
<span style="color:black">
<hr align="center" size="3" width="100%">
</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"> </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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>