<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Dear John M.,<br><br></div>I agree with much that you say here. But I also agree with much of what John W. says. Perhaps my being able to agree with apparently opposing views is from an inability to think clearly. Perhaps my fuzzy thinking gives me the ability to overlook words and to see intent. I hope that this group will be able to integrate all of the approaches that have been and will be presented and that the different members will be able to learn and understand the others so that a completed picture, which will be incontrovertible, can be produced. It won't happen this year. But we may be able to make a start.<br><br></div>I don't have time right now for major discussions or even a reading of the many views. The latter is an important prerequisite of the former. However, I will mention one of the things that has been valuable for me over the last decade: evanescent waves. I think this topic has not been taught much and is too often ignored. That is too bad since it answers many questions, including your's about the virtual photon. I believe that virtual particles and virtual photons are evanescent waves, which properties can explain many of the things swept under the rug as QM 'magic'. They are a part of photons (and thus all particles) and an important part of understanding the nature of light. I expect that your approach and concepts will be of similar value to me as I have time to study them.<br><br></div>Andrew<br>____________________________<br><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:16 PM, John Macken <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:john@macken.com" target="_blank">john@macken.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">Rich, Chip, David and John W.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">The question has been asked, “</span><span style="color:#c00000">How is charge produced by an electron?</span><span style="color:blue">”  A rephrasing of this question would be; </span><span style="color:#c00000">How does an electron or photon produce an electric field?</span><span style="color:blue">” I am under the impression that I am the only one in the group that has written a paper that answers these questions. If anyone knows of an another theory which gives a physical description of how charge or electric field is produced, I would be interested in hearing about it.  I would like to reference the other theories in the paper that I am writing. I am excluding anything that involves virtual photons unless a physical description of a virtual photon is given.  Merely using the words “virtual photon” is just giving a name to something that is not understood.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">  <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">From a philosophical point of view, a real answer to these questions requires that charge and electric field must be described in terms of something else that is truly fundamental.  It is fine to quote Maxwell’s equations and equations for the energy density of an electric or magnetic “field” but what exactly is the field made of?  Only if that question can be answered is it possible to begin to answer the question: </span><span style="color:#c00000">How does an electron produce an electric field?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">My answer to these questions starts by requiring that we give a physical description to spacetime, zero point energy, virtual particle pair production, etc.  I accept the implication that the vacuum has a hidden form of energy density which can be loosely described as the harmonic oscillators of zero point energy. I then look to gravitational wave equations from GR to see if they can help describe the mysterious properties of spacetime.  Gravitational waves are propagating in the medium of spacetime, so they can reveal some of the hidden properties of spacetime.  The first finding is that spacetime has impedance of <i>Z_s = c³/G</i> = 4.04x10³⁵ kg/s. The units kg/s is strange because spacetime does not seem to have any inertia.  However, the unit kg is just a human convention. We could have made the choice to make energy rather than mass one of our basic units such as we use eV in particle physics rather than kg. Therefore, the impedance of spacetime is more correctly expressed using energy (J).  The conversion is: kg/s = J s/m². The reason for mentioning this is that I have also calculated the energy density of spacetime (<i>U_s</i>) implied by gravitational wave equations. If a gravitational wave has angular frequency of </span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:blue">ω</span></i><span style="color:blue">, then it interacts with the following energy density:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">   <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:blue">U_s = c²ω²/G<u></u><u></u></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">This is a wonderful result because if exactly fits with the energetic spacetime model that I propose.  However, I want to return to the questions about charge and electric field.  I have proposed that what appears to be a static electric field such as is produced by an electron is actually a combination of an oscillating strain of space producing a non-oscillating strain of space.   The non-oscillating strain is what we measure as the electric field, however, the energy density that we associate with an electric field is the result of the required oscillating component.  Photons obviously produce oscillating components and we can see the associated electric and magnetic “fields”. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">I quantify the strain of spacetime per coulomb of charge.  When this is reduced to a physical effect, the implication is that a cubic vacuum capacitor should have a maximum possible voltage that can be placed on the plates.  This has nothing to do with field emission of the like, I am talking about the maximum possible strain of spacetime for a cubic vacuum capacitor.  The limit turns out to correspond to the energy which would produce a black hole for the size of the cubic capacitor.  There is a similar limit associated with photons and again this limit corresponds to forming a black hole. There are many other tests which this model has passed.  Everything fits together.  Therefore, when I hear members of the group wondering about charge and electric field, occasionally I am driven to writing a post such as this.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">John M.  <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> General [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bjohn" target="_blank">general-bounces+john</a>=<a href="mailto:macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>David Mathes<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 22, 2015 6:08 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">Rich and Chip<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">“how is charge produced in an electron?”</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">Since we are asking questions....</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">How is charge produced by a photon?     </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">How is charge produced within the photon?</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">How is quantum charge (1/3 e-) produced?</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">Why is charge so closely couple with mass? Are these essentially one and the same effect?</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">...Charge by a photon...</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">I've looked at this a number of different ways. Clearly, curved path of a photon plays a role, perhaps an off-geodesic path that causes some sort of friction or emission. The difficulty is that the photon seems to be self-energizing which leads one to look at a curved photon interacting with spacetime. </span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">SRT can be used on a photon normally where the velocity is constant. For any photon, especially a photon acceleration or deceleration, and in the parlance, off-geodesic movement by the photon, GRT is required.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">Is the interaction between photon in the longitudinal direction or the transverse direction? After all, the E vector is transverse to the photon's travel. </span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">For one cycle of a wavelet, the photon's electric field averages zero. However, if we "stop" the photon and examine by reduction to a small part of the wavelet, we find the electric vector, the magnetic vector, and the Poynting vector, </span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">S = E X B.</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">So if we think for a moment of this photon in an electron, and focus just on the electric field, in a confined circular volume, we might think the electric field vector in the photon is sweeping out all other charged particles including quarks and weak particles. Likewise, we might also conclude no other magnetic particles are permitted. </span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">And yet, an uncharged photon which has the E and B field vectors can traverse an electron as if superposition is permitted between the two. </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">A photon traversing the electron might be considered  as a photon-photon interaction. Are the following equivalent?</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">photon-photon - Neutral particle vs neutral</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">photon-electron - neutral vs charged</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">electron-electron - Coulomb charge (repulsion)</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">Interactions: e-e-</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><a href="https://www.itp.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/a3233/upload/SS12/TheoFest2012/Kapitel/Chapter_3.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.itp.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/a3233/upload/SS12/TheoFest2012/Kapitel/Chapter_3.pdf</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><a href="http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~pjh/teaching/phz7427/7427notes/ch2.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~pjh/teaching/phz7427/7427notes/ch2.pdf</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.0115" target="_blank">[1412.0115] Landau level spectroscopy of electron-electron interactions in graphene</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3484" target="_blank">[1012.3484] Electron-Electron Interactions in Graphene: Current Status and Perspectives</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><a href="http://journals.jps.jp/doi/abs/10.1143/JPSJ.18.516" target="_blank">The Effect of Electron-Electron Interaction on the Nuclear Spin Relaxation in Metals - Journal of the Physical Society of Japan</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0038109879909670" target="_blank">Zero bias anomaly in tunnel resistance and electron-electron interaction</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"CMBX12",serif;color:black">Shell structure and electron-electron interaction in self-assembled InAs quantum dots </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9609270.pdf" target="_blank">http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9609270.pdf</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">David<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #1010ff 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:3.75pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;background:white" align="center"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><hr align="center" size="1" width="100%"></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>><br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>> <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 22, 2015 5:24 AM<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">Chip,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">    Yes, the question should be “how is charge produced in an electron?” Theories that declare that charge cannot travel at the speed of light may need to be reexamined. Hestenes' zitter model of the electron has electric charge traveling in a helix at light-speed for example. Maybe its mathematical “center of charge” travels at less that the speed of light, but this could also be the case in a charged photon model which has a proposed helical motion in a moving electron and this helical motion is at light speed.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">On Jun 22, 2015, at 4:42 AM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">chipakins@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black">Hi Richard</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black">I defense of your approach, lets briefly and simply discuss the photon, “charged photon” and electron.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black">Your model suggests that an electron is a charged photon.  The electron has charge.  All the energy in the electron is in the constituent photon. Upon annihilation the photon is released (as a normal uncharged photon).  So that implies that the photon was in the electron and it had charge.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black">Our normal definition of a photon is that it is light speed and has no charge, however when confined, many of us have suggested that the topology of confinement can cause charge.  When confined it would still be traveling at light speed, so that has not changed, the only thing that has changed is that something has caused confinement and charge.  Confinement and charge seem to be linked in that perhaps charge can only result from confinement. But when confined (and charged) we normally call it something else. It the photon still inside the electron?  It seems it is. Because we can release it.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black">So my opinion is that your title, and your paper, are another valuable illustrative view, and that it helps us to comprehend some of the subtleties of the electron.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black">While it may be perceived as a stretch to assign charge to a photon, because it does not seem that it would be possible for a free linearly traveling photon to exhibit charge… your electron model, as many of our models, contains a confined photon, all the energy of the electron is in the photon, the particle made of the confined photon has charge, so under those circumstances I don’t see why you can’t call it a charged photon to illustrate the point.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black">Chip</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]</span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">On Behalf Of</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Richard Gauthier</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>Sunday, June 21, 2015 9:33 AM</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">Hello John W and others,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">  I recently posed a question on ResearchGate on my charged photon model — “Can an electron be a charged photon with spin 1/2 hbar?", and am getting some good feedback. You are all welcome to join the discussion there and share your views, criticisms and comments.   Here’s my reply to one of the questions:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">Hello Stam, Thank your for your comments and criticisms. I am not saying that a spin 1 uncharged photon with no rest mass is the same as a spin 1/2 charged electron with rest mass. Clearly these are two different particles. What I am proposing is that a hypothetical particle (a charged photon)  may have the essential properties of an ordinary photon -- its speed of light c, its momentum p=h/lambda and its energy E=hf relationships -- and yet have a different spin, charge and rest mass than the ordinary photon.  We may differ on what we think are the essential properties of a photon, but I think that the properties of a photon -- the photon's charge, spin and rest mass --which change in a particle transformation such as electron-positron pair production when a photon interacts with an atomic nucleus (to conserve linear momentum) may be less essential to the fundamental nature of the photon than the properties of the proposed hypothetical photon that may remain--c, p=h/lambda and E=hf--to form the electron with its charge, spin and rest mass.  So I am proposing that it may be useful to think of photons as coming in two varieties that both have the speed of light, energy and momentum properties mentioned above but have different charge, spin and rest mass. In pair production, one particle--the photon-- is transformed into two different particles. The spin 1 photon converts to 2 spin 1/2 particles, the uncharged photon is converted into two oppositely charged particles, and the no-rest-mass photon is converted into 2 particles with rest mass, when the the incoming photon has sufficient energy. But what if the essential properties of the photon -- c, E=hf, and p=h/lambda -- remain unobserved in the electron (yet generate the electron's de Broglie wavelength and the electron's quantum wave functions), while the observed properties spin, charge and rest mass of the charged photon--now called an electron -- are different that that of the ordinary photon. Are you saying that this view is not physically meaningful or contradicts any current physical theory? <br><i>Can an electron be a charged photon with spin 1/2 hbar? - ResearchGate</i>. Available from: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_an_electron_be_a_charged_photon_with_spin_1_2_hbar" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_an_electron_be_a_charged_photon_with_spin_1_2_hbar</span></a> [accessed Jun 21, 2015].<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">On Jun 19, 2015, at 7:53 PM, John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</span></a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Dear John M,</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br><br><span>Thank you for your reply. I think there is very much that is good in your work and your thinking, but I think you perhaps have started from the wrong place in feeling that you have to put in</span><span> </span></span><span style="color:black">G, c,<span> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">ħ</span></span><span><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black">and ε</span><span>_{<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">o</span>}</span><span><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black">from the beginning (let alone the fine structure constant!).<span> </span><br><br>These are constants you should aspire to get out of a fundamental theory.<br> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br></span><span style="color:black">The starting point of mega- giga-tera-peta-exa astronomical energy densities (I don't think even that was enough zeroes!) is anyway, for most, not the fashionable, central point of physics as it stands, but rather the crazy edge where current physics is thought to, as your Wikipedia quote suggests, break down. Now this would not matter to me, if it was not for the fact that this, in our joint discussion, may mistakenly be taken by others in the outside world as a necessary part of our, and hence my, new theory of light and matter. Like it or not, we will get seen as a group. It is the natural error you made yourself when you joined this group and confused what was essentially Richards position, of being representive of my, Martin's Andrew's, Viv's and Chandra's positions. Just not so! I am already being dismissed by current physics as crazy as it is without associating myself with more things though to be beyond-the-pale.<br><br>Coming back to the physics: your analogies of light and material particles, as vibrations of the underlying medium of space and time, stand without starting from some fixed properties. For me this has the added advantage of being far closer to my position - that much of what we perceive as reality stems from the underlying nature of space and time. Here, we agree. The point is -why give yourself a fixed limit based on a handful of physical constants set as your starting point (and thus further immutable and incalculable). Far better to calculate G in terms of electromagnetism rather than put it in a-priori (which is what Martin and my toy model does - toy or not). As I said before, space and time have to be stiff and strong, not massive and energetic, and it is actually these properties that you use to derive your results. Change your limit and the strain in the oscillations goes from the far sub-quantum to something closer to the actual kind of vibration observed in particles. Why not just take it all the way to that which you observe? Forget about there being a "maximum possible" for any aspect of space-time.  That is only of any relevance in extrapolating present theories grounded in experiment in the linear regime, far to the point where they become non-linear.<span> </span>Why start by limiting yourself, especially to something you do not actually know and in a regime completely in-accessible to human experiment!<br><br>Also, while on the theme of Gravitation, I want to take back much of what I said in the last paragraph in my previous email. It was partly due to me panicking a bit on not making enough progress with moving towards some looming deadlines (mostly from work, though July 15th is also getting rapidly closer), and feeling the need to put in precious time to ground a discussion I felt was getting out of hand and absorbing too much of all our energies uneccesarily (as GenRel workes just fine in explaining it as it is). My apologies. There should be no limit on any of our thinking. In fact, perhaps there should be a follow-up workshop on space, time and gravitation. This is something for discussion in the cafe's in San Diego. My only decent point was that it was not, strictly, the theme of this upcoming conference.<br><br>Regards, John W.<span> </span><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;background:white" align="center"><span style="color:black"><hr align="center" size="2" width="100%"></span></div><div><div style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>] on behalf of John Macken [<a href="mailto:john@macken.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">john@macken.com</span></a>]</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>Friday, June 19, 2015 11:33 PM</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">John W.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">Thank you for your thoughtful views and summary of past discussions.  I have one small point of clarification of my position.  First, the term “Planck scale” has a specific meaning which does not fit with my work on particles and forces.  Here is what Wikipedia has to say about “Planck scale”<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:#252525;background:white">“In </span></span><span style="color:black"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics" title="Particle physics" target="_blank"><span><span style="color:#0b0080;background:white;text-decoration:none">particle physics</span></span></a></span><span><span style="color:#252525;background:white"> and </span></span><span style="color:black"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology" title="Physical cosmology" target="_blank"><span><span style="color:#0b0080;background:white;text-decoration:none">physical cosmology</span></span></a></span><span><span style="color:#252525;background:white">, the <b>Planck scale</b> is an </span></span><span style="color:black"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_scale" title="Energy scale" target="_blank"><span><span style="color:#0b0080;background:white;text-decoration:none">energy scale</span></span></a></span><span><span style="color:#252525;background:white"> around 1.22 × 10¹⁹ </span></span><span style="color:black"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeV" title="GeV" target="_blank"><span><span style="color:#0b0080;background:white;text-decoration:none">GeV</span></span></a></span><span><span style="color:#252525;background:white"> (which corresponds to the </span></span><span style="color:black"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence" title="Mass–energy equivalence" target="_blank"><span><span style="color:#0b0080;background:white;text-decoration:none">mass–energy equivalence</span></span></a></span><span><span style="color:#252525;background:white"> of the </span></span><span style="color:black"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass" title="Planck mass" target="_blank"><span><span style="color:#0b0080;background:white;text-decoration:none">Planck mass</span></span></a></span><span><span style="color:#252525;background:white">2.17645 × 10⁻⁸ kg) at which </span></span><span style="color:black"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_effects" title="Quantum effects" target="_blank"><span><span style="color:#0b0080;background:white;text-decoration:none">quantum effects</span></span></a></span><span><span style="color:#252525;background:white"> of </span></span><span style="color:black"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity" title="Gravity" target="_blank"><span><span style="color:#0b0080;background:white;text-decoration:none">gravity</span></span></a></span><span><span style="color:#252525;background:white"> become strong. At this scale, present descriptions and theories of sub-atomic particle interactions in terms of </span></span><span style="color:black"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory" title="Quantum field theory" target="_blank"><span><span style="color:#0b0080;background:white;text-decoration:none">quantum field theory</span></span></a></span><span><span style="color:#252525;background:white"> break down.”</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">For example, my model of an electron is a Planck length and Planck time displacement of spacetime, rotating at the speed of light, but this is not the same as “Planck scale”.  The displacement occurs over a radial distance equal to an electron’s reduced Compton wavelength (about 3.86x10^-13<span> </span>m). In order for this to be Planck scale (Planck energy) the same displacement would have to occur over a distance equal to Planck length. <span> </span><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">The important point is that even though the displacement of spacetime is the same, the “strain amplitude” is the important measurement of wave amplitude.  For example, an electron has strain amplitude of:<span> </span><i>A_s</i><span> </span>=<span> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">L_p</span></i></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">/<i><s>λ</s></i>_c</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">≈ 4.18x10^-23</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">(a dimensionless number) while the strain amplitude of a hypothetical Planck mass would be</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">A_s</span></i></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">=</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">L_p/L_p</span></i></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">= 1 (the maximum possible strain amplitude).  An electron’s reduced angular frequency divided by Planck frequency is also</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">ω</span></i></span><span>_{<span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">c</span>}</span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">/<i>ω</i>_p</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">≈ 4.18x10^-23. In fact, this number occurs everywhere when describing properties of an electron.  Even the previously discussed ratio of the forces produced between two electrons at arbitrary distance</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">r</span></i></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> is:</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">F_g/F_eα</span></i></span><span>^{<span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">-1</span>}</span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> =</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">A_s</span></i></span><span>^{<span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">2</span>}</span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">= (4.18x10^-23)² </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">I admit that the proposed energy density of the vacuum can be classified as Planck scale, but that is undetectable energy that lacks angular momentum.  It is not really the same as any type of observable energy that we might encounter.  It merely is necessary to give spacetime its properties of G, c,<span> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black">ħ</span></span><span><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black">and ε_o.  It is the background “quantum foam” that forms the characteristics of spacetime.  Spacetime is not a fixed grid.  Because of this activity, it is not possible to reference motion relative to spacetime. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">John M.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]</span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">On Behalf Of</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">John Williamson</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>Friday, June 19, 2015 12:36 AM</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</span><br><span><b>Cc:</b></span><span> </span><span>Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">Dear people,</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><br><br><span>There is no issue. The speed of light has, as John M and Martin say, a definition. It is the rate of change of space with respect to time. Measured locally. Given this definition it is as John D points out, a tautology that the speed of light is constant as measured in all inertial frames. With this definition it then makes no sense to say that something that is constant varies.</span><br><br><span>In accelerated or gravitational frames the situation is different - exactly as John M points out. Indeed, as John D says the speed of light may be viewed as varying  with respect to space wrt any given observer. Equally, it may be viewed as a variation on the rate of change of space with respect to some standard. These are reciprocal views of the same thing. You can say I want to keep my space constant and vary velocity (John D), or keep my velocity constant and vary space (John M and Martin). It is worth noting though that describing particles as terms of vibrations of the elastic spacetime medium (John D and John M) is inconstistent with keeping space as a fixed grid!</span><span> </span><br><br><span>Frankly I do not give a damn ( I have a preference for constant velocity and inconstant space - but then), I can see both (or all three!) at the same time. So what? Provided the effect is very small (say compared to the wavelength of light) it does not matter which way you choose to look at it, both are entirely equivalent. General relativity, in general, is written from the John M-Martin perspective).  As Martin says, it works, and it describes the situation perfectly. END of story.</span><br><br><span>Einstein did indeed worry about the limits - but Einstein worried about a lot of things. He was not one-shot one-idea Einstein. He played with ideas -looked at things from different angles. There is no definitive Einstein, and more than there is a definitive Williamson, Macken, Duffield or van der Mark. Einstein, though I wish he was still here, is not. Smart though he was, he was not (just like the rest of us) always right. He cannot still argue for himself and we must not stand him up as an ultimate authority on everything, but must argue from the merits of every standpoint.</span><br><br><span>Now, this is all a very interesting discussion, but gravitation is a very weak (for me derivative of EM) effect. It only really becomes of any pertinence at all in terms of electromagnetism, the photon or the confinement of the electron at ridiculously, experimentally unattainable densities at the Planck scale. Now this is a very interesting discussion- but is distracting me and many of you from the theme of the upcoming conference. We are wasting time on details 20 orders of magnitude outside of where we need to focus for the time being. It is, in my view, really for a different conference in a different context at a different time.</span><span> </span><br><br><span>Regards, John W.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;background:white" align="center"><span style="color:black"><hr align="center" size="3" width="100%"></span></div><div><div style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>] on behalf of John Duffield [<a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a>]</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>Friday, June 19, 2015 8:05 AM</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">Martin:</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">I’m not dismissing the use of inertial reference frames. I’m trying to get you to pay attention to what Einstein said:</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">light curves because the speed of light varies with position.</span></i></span><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">  </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">Please note I’m not proposing some idea I’ve dreamt up. I’m not some “my theory” guy. You aren’t disagreeing with me, you’re disagreeing with Einstein. I think this point is crucial to avoid “geon” misunderstandings. So please explain why you think light curves in a  gravitational field, and I’ll try to point out the issues with your explanation. The thing to appreciate is that there’s physicists out there who will teach you all about general relativity, but when you read Einstein’s original material, you realise that they flatly contradicted Einstein whilst appealing to his authority.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">Make sure you read this:</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html</span></a></span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">This is the previous version:</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html</span></a></span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">PhysicsFAQ editor Don Koks rewrote this article after I pointed out that it contradicted itself. It previously said this:</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">This [VSL]  interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity.</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">  Followed by this:</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies.</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">   </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">The speed of light varies in the room you’re in. If it didn’t, your pencil wouldn’t fall down.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">Regards</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">John D</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]</span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">On Behalf Of</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Mark, Martin van der</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>18 June 2015 22:30</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">John, here is a better quality print of the paper.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Since you dismiss the use of inertial reference frames you are automatically screwing up the very notion of what the speed of light is.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Hence you cannot, and are not, talking in a self-consistent fashion about it. Not that anything you say is wrong by itself, but it doesn’t make a logical or complete argument.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I have studied it for a long time and have seen people get their knickers in a twist, being confused, and so on. Apparently it is not easy: Frank Wilczek, Nobel laureate, cannot even get the photon in a box idea, which you actually do get! I just cannot figure out where your problem is, really, it must be coming from contamination with another problem in physics, you see, you are a very associative thinker (I like that, but it requires retracing the sloppy jumps to conclusions to make proper science).</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Cheers, Martin</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy" lang="DE">Dr. Martin B. van der Mark</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Prof. Holstlaan 4</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Tel: +31 40 2747548</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]</span></span><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">On Behalf Of</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">John Duffield</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>donderdag 18 juni 2015 22:08</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">Martin:</span></b></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">Einstein said what he said. Light curves because the speed of light varies with position. Not because space is curved, or because spacetime is curved. But because space is</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22neither%20homogeneous%22" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">inhomogeneous</span></a>, see attached. Because a concentration of energy tied up in the guise of a massive star “conditions” the surrounding space, altering its metrical properties. And all that comes from the guy who said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content, just like your</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">light in a box</span></a>. So brace yourself my Flemish friend, and take a stiff drink. Then watch my lips and listen carefully:</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">what you’ve been taught about relativity is wrong</span></i></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">.  Just like</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-15_NutshellReadMore.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">what I was taught about electrons</span></a></span></i></b></span><span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></i></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">is wrong. And note this: people, especially principal scientists, have a bad habit of rejecting anything that challenges what they were taught. That’s why it took you six years to get that paper  into a journal, and why eighteen years later, people</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">still</span></i></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">reject the idea that the electron is a photon going round and round. They would rather believe in magic and wallow in mystery.</span></b></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">But we don’t, do we?     </span></b></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">Andrew:</span></b></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">Re</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">once again we are in close agreement</span></i></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">, good stuff. If nobody agreed about anything, life would be hard, If we all agreed about everything, life would be soft. But somewhere between the two, it’s just right.  </span></b></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">Regards</span></b></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">John D</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]</span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">On Behalf Of</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Mark, Martin van der</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>18 June 2015 12:26</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">John, just forget it and go fishing.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">If you do not want to use the same words for the same meaning as others have done, then there cannot be a discussion. Period.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Your potentially good understanding of relativity is severely hampered by it.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Have  a beer, cheers, Martin</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy" lang="DE">Dr. Martin B. van der Mark</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Prof. Holstlaan 4</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Tel: +31 40 2747548</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]</span></span><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">On Behalf Of</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">John Duffield</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>donderdag 18 juni 2015 8:17</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">Martin:</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">The problem is that the speed of light</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">isn’t</span></i></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">constant. Forget about inertial frames or accelerated frames, because you cannot point up to the clear night sky and say</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">“look, there’s a reference frame”.</span></i></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">A reference frame is an abstract thing associated with your measurements. Just think about the room you’re in. In this room an optical clock near the floor goes slower than an optical clock near the ceiling. And there is no actual time flowing through these clocks. Instead what you have in those clocks is, at the fundamental level,</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">light, moving</span></i></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">. So why does light curve downwards? Let’s</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22speed%20of%20light%22" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">ask Einstein</span></a>:</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:inherit;color:#222222" lang="EN-GB">“Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">Einstein never ever said light curves because spacetime is curved. He said</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/360?highlightText=%22velocity%20of%20light%22" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">this</span></a>:</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:inherit;color:#222222" lang="EN-GB">“This was possible on the basis of the law of the constancy of the velocity of light. But according to Section 21, the general theory of relativity cannot retain this law”.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">And</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/340?highlightText=%22laid%20in%20the%20dust%22" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">this</span></a>.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:inherit;color:black" lang="EN-GB">“In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).”</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">Like I said, some of the translations use the word velocity when it should have been speed. Light curves</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">because</span></i></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">the speed of light varies with position. It isn’t totally unlike</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/SNR_PROP/snr_prop.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">sonar</span></a>.</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"><image001.gif></span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">So when your electron falls down, it ain’t magic:</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"><image002.jpg></span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">Regards</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">John D</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]</span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">On Behalf Of</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Mark, Martin van der</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>17 June 2015 23:53</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">Dear John D, </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">As john M is corectly trying to point out, but i will say it in a slightly different way:</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">The speed of light is supposed to be constant in an any inertial frame (and it is!!!). The pressence of a gravitational field implies an accelerated frame, by the principle of equivalence it can locally be replaced by an accelerating space ship or elevator or what. </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">What is the problem? Special relativity can already deal with this correctly, and there should be no confusion about the definitions.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">Claming that there is a problem with the non-constancy of the speed of light is a mistake: it is exactly non constant in the way it should be, in accordance with the constancy of light speed as measured in any inertial (lorentz) frame or even very local, and if horizontal, in a gravitational field!</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">Cheers, Martin</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><br><br><span>Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><div><div style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><br><span>Op 17 jun. 2015 om 22:38 heeft John Macken <<a href="mailto:john@macken.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">john@macken.com</span></a>> het volgende geschreven:</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">John D.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">I disagree with two of your points and I am not sure if we agree or disagree on the third point.  I will start with the constancy of the speed of light.  This is the one where I am not sure if we agree or disagree.  I claim that the speed of light measured locally is constant.  You agree but imply that this is a trivial point because both the meter and the second are defined by the speed of light.  If we were dealing with some abstract physics problem, I would agree.  However, in the real world there are many more components which all change in a way to preserve the covariance of the laws of physics.  For example, the all the following are the same when it is measured in different gravitational potentials using different rates of time:</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div style="margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:8.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:11.55pt;background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">a)</span></span><span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">     </span></span><span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">The gravitational constant; b) the electron’s energy; c) the electron’s charge; d) the fine structure constant; e) a mass of 1 kg</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">I could go on, but the point is that saying that the speed of light is constant when measured locally is not a trivial statement.  Think about using a physical meter stick and a stop watch to measure the speed of light.  All the atoms and forces in the meter stick and all the physical parts of the stop watch need to cooperate to give a constant speed of light when measured locally. </span></span><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">I am a strong believer that the speed of light is not constant if a hypothetical “zero gravity observer” uses his/her clock to make the measurement.  I think that if we were discussing the speed of light in person, we would decide that we agreed, but were using different words.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">The next point will not go away so easily.  You said:</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> “So matter is deflected half as much as light.”</span></span><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">.  If I understand this statement, you are claiming that if a neutron or neutrino traveling at virtually the speed of light passes by the sun, the deflection would be different compared to the deflection of light.  This implies that inside a closed spaceship that you can do an experiment that determines if you are in zero gravity or in free fall in a gravitational field.  The difference should theoretically be detectable by measuring the difference in the location of where photons and neutrons strike a target when they are shot transverse to the suspected gravitational field.  This is not going to happen.  Again the extra volume created by gravity explains this.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">The next point of disagreement is contained in the following:</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> “I’m afraid the Shapiro experiment has not showed that the sun has enlarged the volume of the surrounding space</span></span><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">.” You then quite from a 1964 paper which proposed the experiment.  It is standard GR that in a gravitational field generated by a central mass you would get a different radial distance measured with a hypothetical tape measure compared to the radius calculated by measuring the circumference and dividing by 2π.  Therefore terms such as “circumferential radius” or “reduced radius” were coined to specify this difference.  Here are two sentences from my book.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">Suppose that it was possible to stretch a tape measure from the earth to the surface of the sun. The distance measured by the tape measure (proper distance) would be about 7.5 km greater than a distance obtained from an assumption of flat space and a Euclidian geometry calculation.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">The book goes on to calculate the non-Euclidian volume increase caused by the sun’s gravity within a spherical volume 1 AU in radius.  The answer obtained is 3.46 × 10²⁶</span></span><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">m³</span></span><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">which is more than 300,000 times larger than the volume of the earth (earth’s volume is ≈ 1.08 × 10²¹</span></span><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">m³). On page 2-13 of the book there is another calculation that compares the decrease in the rate of time and the increase in the radial dimension produced by gravity.  Here is the conclusion. </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">When we include the time dimension and calculate the effect of the gravity generated by a single mass on the surrounding spacetime, we obtain the answer that the</span></span><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><b><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">4</span></b></span><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">dimensional spacetime volume is independent of gravitational gamma Г. The radial dimension increases (Г = dL_R/dR) and the temporal dimension decreases (Г = dt/dτ). These offset each other resulting in the</span></span><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><b><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">4</span></b></span><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">dimensional volume remaining constant.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">John M.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]</span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">On Behalf Of</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">John Duffield</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:18 AM</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB">John M:</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB">With respect John, I’m being very precise.  We use the local motion of light to define our metre and our second. Then we use them to measure… the local motion of light. Duh! The apparent constancy is a tautology, and a popscience myth. Have a look at</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#000099">http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507</span></a></span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> and check out</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#000099">this Baez article</span></a></span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB">. The speed of light varies in the room you’re in. Light goes slower near the floor than near the ceiling, and because of this, light curves. That’s what Einstein said, repeatedly. Do your own research on this, see original material like</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/360?highlightText=%22velocity%20of%20light%22" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#954f72">this</span></a></span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> and note that the English translations sometimes use the word velocity when the correct word to use is speed. Einstein refers to the SR postulate, which was the constant speed of light, and says it doesn’t apply where gravity is concerned.    </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB">The deflection of light is twice the Newtonian deflection of matter because of the wave nature of matter. Simplify the electron to light going round and round. Then simplify it further to light going round a square path. Then draw the light curving downwards, like this:</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"><image003.jpg></span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB">Can you envisage how the electron falls down? The reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic energy out into external kinetic energy, and once you’ve radiated that away, you’re left with a</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy#Mass-energy_relation" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#954f72">mass deficit</span></a></span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB">. Anyway, note that only the horizontals bend downwards? The verticals don’t. So only half the total light path is deflected. So matter is deflected half as much as light.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB">I’m afraid the Shapiro experiment has not showed that the sun has enlarged the volume of the surrounding space. See Shapiro’s paper attached, and note this:</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB">“the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path”</span></i></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB">.  I’m afraid the people who tell you that the Sun has enlarged space, and that the speed of light is absolutely constant, are flatly contradicting Einstein, Shapiro, and the hard scientific evidence.     </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB">Re the shear-wave analogy, I was referring to transverse waves in an elastic solid. See the shear-stress term in the stress-energy-momentum tensor? Shear stress. It’s there because space is something like a ghostly gin-clear elastic continuum. NB: electromagnetic waves are typically dipole transverse waves, whilst gravitational waves are said to be quadrupole transverse waves.  </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB">Regards</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB">John D </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099" lang="EN-GB"><image004.png></span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]</span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">On Behalf Of</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">John Macken</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>17 June 2015 17:12</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">John D.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">I think that you are not being precise enough when you say that the speed of light is not constant.  There are two definitions for ways of measuring the speed of light.  In one of them the speed of light is constant and in the other the speed of light is not constant.  If the speed of light is measured locally (using a local clock and ruler), then the speed of light is always constant.  If you adopt a single clock to measure the speed of light in different gravitational potentials, then the speed of light varies. </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">Even your interpretation of the amount that it varies depends on one other choice.  This point will be illustrated with an example.  When light is bent by passing near a large mass such as the sun, the angle is twice what might be expected from the classical model of the light feeling gravitational acceleration and “falling” as it passed the massive body.  The factor of 2 can be explained two different ways. I will not go into the details here because they are covered in chapters 2 and 3 of my book.  However, the key difference between these two choices lies in the handling of the gravitational effect on volume.  The Shapiro experiment showed that the sun has enlarged the volume of the surrounding space beyond what would be expected from Euclidian geometry.  If the photon passing through this volume is given credit for having traveled a greater distance, then the effect on the radial coordinate speed of light is different than if this effect on space is ignored and all the bending is attributed to a slowing in the coordinate speed of light. </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">On another point, I am not sure that I understood your comment about the analogy to the sheer wave speed of sound.  Sound wave analogies break down when you get into sheer waves.  Spacetime does not need to be a rigid medium like a solid in order to be able to support transverse waves.  When we are dealing with waves propagating at the speed of light, effects occur which are not analogous to waves propagating at far less than the speed of light.  The fact that gravitational waves are transverse waves without spacetime being a rigid body is one of these differences. </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">John M.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]</span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">On Behalf Of</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">John Duffield</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:43 PM</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">John M:</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">Take care with constants. In mechanics a shear wave travels at a velocity determined by the stiffness and density of the medium:  </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div style="margin-left:1.5in"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">    </span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">    v = √(G/ρ)</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div style="margin-left:1.5in"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">The G here is the</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">shear modulus of elasticity</span></i></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">, the ρ is the density. The equation says a shear wave travels faster if the material gets stiffer, and slower if the density increases. You can’t directly apply the concept of density to space, but in electrodynamics the velocity equation is remarkably similar:</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div style="margin-left:1.5in"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">         c = √(1/ε₀μ₀)</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">People are taught that the speed of light is constant, but it simply isn’t true. See the second paragraph</span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22speed%20of%20light%22" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#954f72">here</span></a></span></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">. If the speed of light was constant in the room you’re in, optical clocks wouldn’t go slower when they’re lower, and your pencil wouldn’t fall down.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">Regards</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">John D</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><image003.jpg></span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]</span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">On Behalf Of</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">John Macken</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>17 June 2015 02:07</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">Hello John W. and All,</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">In your response you said,</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:#c00000" lang="EN-GB">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:</span></span><span><span style="color:#c00000" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">This is very interesting since this implies an alternative to my charge conversion constant</span></span><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">η</span></i></span><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">η</span></i></span><span><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></i></span><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">≡</span></span><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> (<i>G<b>/</b></i>4π<i>ε_oc</i>⁴)^1/2</span></span><span>^{<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span>}</span><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">=</span></span><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">L_p</span></i></span><span><i>_{<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span>}</i></span><span><b><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">/</span></i></b></span><span><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">q_p</span></i></span><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">≈ 8.61 x 10^-18</span></span><span>^{<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span>}</span><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">m<b><i>/</i></b>C</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">(1/4π<i>ε_o</i>)(1/</span></span><span><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">η</span></i></span><span>^{<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">2</span>}</span><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">) = <i>c⁴/G</i></span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">G</span></i></span><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> = 4π<i>ε_oc⁴</i></span></span><span><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">η</span></i></span><span><i>^{<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">2</span>}</i></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">I admit that I think that my charge conversion constant is perfect.  Therefore, I would like to make a comparison to your derivation that eliminates the constant</span></span><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">1/4πε_o.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-GB">John M.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]</span></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">On Behalf Of</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">John Williamson</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>Tuesday, June 16, 2015 4:47 PM</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</span><br><span><b>Cc:</b></span><span> </span><span>Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Ariane Mandray; Philipp Steinmann</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">Dear John M and everyone,</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><br><br><span>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.</span><span> </span><br><br><span>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.</span><br><br><span>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.</span><br><br><span>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.</span><br><br><span>Regards, John W.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;background:white" align="center"><span style="color:black"><hr align="center" size="3" width="100%"></span></div><div><div style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB">From:</span></b></span><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>] on behalf of John Macken [<a href="mailto:john@macken.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">john@macken.com</span></a>]</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><br><span><b>Sent:</b></span><span> </span><span>Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:56 PM</span><br><span><b>To:</b></span><span> </span><span>Nature of Light and Particles</span><br><span><b>Subject:</b></span><span> </span><span>[General] Electrical Charge and Photons</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">Hello John W and Everyone,</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">In looking over one of the papers sent by John W. I was struck by the following sentences:</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#c00000" lang="EN-GB">This comes to one of the central, outstanding mysteries of physics. What is the underlying nature of quantized charge?</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">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></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">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></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">John </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:SimSun;color:black" lang="EN-GB">_______________________________________________</span></span><span style="font-family:SimSun;color:black" lang="EN-GB"><br><span>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at</span><span> </span><span><a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a></span><br><span><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"></span><br><span>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br><span></a></span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-family:SimSun;color:black" lang="EN-GB"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;background:white" align="center"><span style="color:black"><hr align="center" size="2" width="100%"></span></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray" lang="EN-GB">The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">_______________________________________________</span></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at</span><span> </span></span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954f72">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span><a href="</span></span><span style="color:black"><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954f72">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></span></a></span><span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">"></span></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br><span></a></span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">_______________________________________________</span></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at</span><span> </span></span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span><a href="</span></span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a></span><span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">"></span></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><br><span>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br><span></a></span></span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black">_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" target="_blank">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>