<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:NimbusRomNo9L-Regu}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
-->
</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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Dear John M and everyone,<br>
<br>
Indeed it is useful to think about the relationship between things. I also agree with John M that gravity and electromagnetism are different aspects of the same thing. As I have said before, Martin and I developed a toy theory of these a decade or two ago
which gave the right numbers (with zero extra background mass/energy) but has not developed further than a a few pages in our "appendix" due to lack of time or energy due to the demands of our day jobs.
<br>
<br>
At the end of the day, replacing one universal constant with another, related one is zero net progress. In Martin and my 1997 paper we calculated the charge in terms of Planck's constant (or vice versa). This is one fundamental constant less. The basic idea
was that the oscillating electric field of the photon became uni-directional due to the folding of the photon path into a double-loop.<br>
<br>
The hope with the new theory, which incorporates the experimentally observed properties of the four-dimensions of space and time from the outset, is that one can use it to calculate BOTH from first principles. I have tried this within the framework of an emission/absorption
model in the new classical field theory - and obtained an answer - but it is currently a couple orders of magnitude out. This is one of the areas I hope to get some help from with within the group - especially those with specialist knowledge of Atomic physics
- which is where I think the answer lies. Martin and I are anyway onto this - and he is already brushing up on his understanding of Atomic physics (amongst one or two other things!) to help to try to get a handle on this.<br>
<br>
Just for the record, our toy model calculated big G in terms of 1/(4pi epsilon zero) ... thus eliminating (in principle) yet another natural constant altogether: one of the essential assumptions in deriving this was precisely that there was zero net energy
in the vacuum fluctuations. As is observed.<br>
<br>
Regards, John W.<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF276175"><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> Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] Electrical Charge and Photons<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Hello John W and Everyone,
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">In looking over one of the papers sent by John W. I was struck by the following sentences:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; color:#C00000">This comes to one of the central, outstanding mysteries of physics. What is the underlying nature of quantized charge?</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It has occurred to me that I can make a contribution to answering this question. Attached is several pages from chapter 9 of the revised version of my book. In this I
propose a “charge conversion constant” and show the implications of this towards explaining the properties of a photon.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I would appreciate hearing if anyone can find a single case where using the charge conversion constant gives an unreasonable answer. Also, the paper implies that the spacetime
field is the new aether. Can you find any reasons why this is not correct?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">John
</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>