<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">David,</div><div class=""> You asked “Richard: For the charged photon model of the electron, I’m wondering if there is an uncharged electron version." The closest I came to this is my proposal for an uncharged fermion dark matter particle similar to my electron model but composed of a circulating uncharged photon having a different closed helical radius than that of my electron model. With the recent proposal for an uncharged dark matter pion, perhaps the uncharged electron model will soon be in the running also. You can find more information on this proposed uncharged fermion dark matter particle in Section 8 on page 5 of my article at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/4429777/A_Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Model_of_the_Cosmic_Quantum" class="">https://www.academia.edu/4429777/A_Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Model_of_the_Cosmic_Quantum</a> .</div><div class=""> Richard</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 29, 2015, at 11:10 PM, John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" class="">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; direction: ltr;" class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">Dear Chandra, David and Richard,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">Thank you for your position statement, questions, and suggestions.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">Chandra, I like your way of thinking and I think it goes a very long way to explaining many of the properties of interactions, waves, particles and wave particles.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">David – I like your musings about what one would get if one merged the ways of thinking of all present to make a kludged agreed theory.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">Richard, thank you for attempting to do just that between your model and mine (and for pointing out the typos!).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">My view is that all of these things should also be turned on their heads. Looked at from upside-down (and inside out) and from after z (after Seuss!). Will have a go at all of these below.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">Firstly to answer a question of David’s in this thread on Tuesday – Firstly I was rather sloppy in saying one followed gamma. This is not quite correct. Sorry – I have to work very hard to be rigorous all of the time and often do not quite manage. The frequencies follow gamma in the way described in my “Light” paper as R – the relativistic scale factor for light (this is not the same thing – it is the factor by which internal rulers and clocks change – related to gamma but not precisely the same, precisely because of the relativistic changes in rulers and clocks). It is a two-level process, and two-level linearity. The two frequencies in the “harmony of phases” go as R and 1/R. Their product remains constant (at 1 or f squared if you take the frequency as a base measure). Likewise the wavelengths go as 1/R and R. The product of the observed velocities (the phase and group velocities) is also a constant (C squared). This is true for any relativistic theory (e.g. Dirac). The factor of 2 you refer to is the ratio of vg and vp in Shroedinger quantum mechanics. It is quite quite wrong – but ordinary non-relativistic quantum mechanics has been the only useful theory we have had for engineering solid-state devices and systems until now. Trying to merge this with lightspeed models has been the cause, in my view, of pretty much all of the confusion in the field of quantum coherence.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">It is the energy (of a massive particle) that goes as gamma (the average of R and 1/R). For light the two become the same (because of the relativistic transformations fixing light-speed as the ultimate limit –as it is). It is precisely this comparison of things and their inverses that is crucial in understanding nature. Penrose – in his excellent book “The road to reality” uses it all the time –with complex numbers. I think complex is still too simple – but more on this below.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">I would turn the musing of merging on their head as well. What if one focussed precisely on the differences? These, it will turn out, are what you put in to your little toy model of reality. By “little toy model” I mean everything from postulates, through models, to full (un-) blown (unphased by mighty experiments) theories such as QED, Maxwell or QM. All made up by humans. All not preciselly paralleling all of reality – just and no more. All mere maths and words.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">Each and every tiny little difference in starting point makes a huge difference in what the theory ends up describing.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">This is why the scientific method has been so powerful. You (should) run through ALL of the consequences (not just the ones you like). This is not easy. It can take decades just to work out what a theory means. This is an on-going process in all of the theories mentioned above. Having done so you need to trace this back to the beginning. Change just one of your starting assumptions a tiny little bit. Work hard for a few decades and then (likely!) think again.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">So Chandra, the Complex Tension Field?<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>I think something like this is going on – and this is a good standpoint. I will talk about each of the three words in turn and point out (very briefly!) where we agree or differ.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">Complex? I would take (and have taken) a slightly different starting point than the complex. As I said above I think complex is better than scalar but it is still too simple. It starts by assuming a 2D space which is not observed. David has touched on this in one of his questions as well. I would say that you need to have one real-like and THREE imaginary-like dimensions, A hypercomplex space paralleling that which is observed in the reality of the actual space and time around you.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">Tension? Could well be. I would go for “compression” though. We should discuss this!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">Field? Agreed!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">Now Richard. We are getting closer – but we really need to sit down together for at least a week. I have said that the path of the “photon” on my model is not in space many times and in many emails – that you need to project it onto space and this will be a mere shadow of the actual trajectory – but you are just simply not getting this. This is one of your strengths – not a weakness. Do not worry, almost no-one gets it yet. You want to have a full-self-consistent picture of what is going on and will worry at the precise point where it does not make full sense. Good for you! Let me try to help from a different direction. In the new theory the electron, for me, is not just field, but also (rest) mass. The precise description is in the maths – and you must not just skate over this. The electron is both light-speed and fixed. At least two parts (actually at least seven and root-energy makes eight – but there you go). 3D space just does not hack the complexity of what is going on. Not even a bit!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">David – you ask a question as to what is rotating in light in general and in the magnetic field in particular. Again the answer to this is not in words – where one could argue, but in the maths. In the “light” paper there is an equation for the photon wave function (Eq 21). In it the fields are essentially rotating. They do not follow a little helix though. They are essentially rotating and this is very different. Now this could just be dismissed at present as just being weird Williamson – but the same is true, and always has been, in the Maxwell equations. The magnetic field is – and always was, an axial vector. It is, for charge, that set of components of the six-field that accelerates charged stuff perpendicular to the direction of motion (the other three, the electric field accelerate longitudinally). That is what it is. That is what it was for Maxwell as well (who formulated this stuff in the maths of quaternions). It is not a little mass going round and round pushed by some strange forces. It is round and roundness incarnate.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">It comes down to something very very basic. What do you mean by multiplication or division when it comes to space and time? Imagine a line. Now imagine an area. Do you see a square or a circle? You may see a square, but nature can see only circles. Why? An area is a line swept over a perpendicular line. There is, however, no sweeper. A particle has only itself to sweep about. Any “sweeping” must occur about the centre of mass, in force-free motion. Any “line” element must then sweep about this centre. Physically. Not mere maths. Physics. Circles then- not squares. That circulation is your circulation. Not a circulation engendered by some mysterious forces – but a circulation precisely because of the lack of force. That circulation is the “zitterbewegung” first found by Dirac and Shroedinger. It is the nature of the magnetic field envisaged by Maxwell (look at his papers – wheels!). It is the proper nature of “areas” in space. It is this property that I am trying to parallel in my mathematical description. The mathematical description is, however, only a shadow of the thinking and the thinking is not in the mathematics of the description. The thinking is in the physics of space and time.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">Gentlemen, only a couple of weeks to go and we will be able to do this with blank paper and pencils. Much more potent than emails!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">Look forwards to it.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue';" class="">Regards, John W.<a name="_GoBack" class=""></a></span></p><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px;" class=""><hr tabindex="-1" class=""><div id="divRpF850551" style="direction: ltr;" class=""><font face="Tahoma" size="2" class=""><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] on behalf of David Mathes [<a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" class="">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a>]<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday, July 30, 2015 4:02 AM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Weyl Fermions<br class=""></font><br class=""></div><div class=""></div><div class=""><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" class=""><div id="yiv3312078618" class=""><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438223313581_14849" class=""><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438223313581_14848" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" class=""><div id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class=""><span id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5526" class="">Chandra, Richard and friends</span></div><div id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class=""><span class=""><br clear="none" class=""></span></div><div id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class=""><span class="">I still have more questions than answers.</span></div><div id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class="">Chandra: CTF has a foundational issue. For the CTF, I'm wondering why a simple tension field (STF) is not enough. That is, when and why does a simple tension field (STF) become a complex tension field (CTF)... and what are the nature of the complexities. For CTF I wonder if torsion fields are the source of complexity. What in the vacuum or spacetime influences fields to act in a simple or complex way. The short list will be fine as a starter kit.</div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class="">Then, how can these complexities act in total. And when can we (or nature) ignore and simplify a CTF to a STF at least for instructional or engineering purposes. What context is required for CTF and STF functions...?</div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class=""><br clear="none" class=""></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class="">Richard: For the charged photon model of the electron, I'm wondering if there is an uncharged electron version. </div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class=""><br clear="none" class=""></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class="">With the photon-as-an-electron models, the most obvious question is "what is charge?", a question that can be added to the pantheon of questions including "What is the photon?", "what is the electron?" and "what is the context?"</div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class="">Charge is the common issue for most if not all models of any elementary particle. Where does it come from? Is charge a byproduct or a primary source? Can we take an electron, split the electron, and get one or two photons? Where does the charge go?</div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class="">Why can a photon carry charge energy but not be charged. What types of internal, external and transboundary charge is available? What are the thermodynamics of charge? and so on...</div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5527" class=""><br class=""></div><div id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5774" class=""><br clear="none" class=""></div><div id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5775" class=""><br clear="none" class=""></div><blockquote id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5452" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 5px;" class=""><div id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5451" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" class=""><div id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5450" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" class=""><div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br class=""><br class=""></div><div class="yiv3312078618yqt2392842931" id="yiv3312078618yqt17874"><div dir="ltr" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5449" class=""><hr id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5776" size="1" class=""><font id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5525" face="Arial" size="2" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="">From:</span></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>"Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <<a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>><br clear="none" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="">To:</span></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="">Sent:</span></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Wednesday, July 29, 2015 4:24 PM<br clear="none" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="">Subject:</span></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Weyl Fermions<br clear="none" class=""></font></div><div class="yiv3312078618y_msg_container" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5777"><br clear="none" class=""><div id="yiv3312078618" class=""><div id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5781" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618WordSection1" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5780"><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5779" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5778" style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">Dear Friends: I have attached my “position paper” to generate counter comments; so that I can start improving my mode of thinking.</span></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5782" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> </span></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5784" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5783" style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">Not being a good theoretician, I have not dived into constructing a mathematical model for electrons and protons as “light-speed” “self-looped” oscillation of some excited tension properties of the old ether. But instead of the word ether, I use a more descriptive phrase, Complex Tension Filed (CTF). This CTF always remains stationary as the inertial rest frame for the entire cosmic system. Only its various (the word “complex”) excited tension properties locally oscillate or locally change the gradients in time. Since we cannot separately feel or detect CTF directly, the entire observable universe persistently appear to be an elusive system; but, in reality, the observable universe is not god’s magic or illusion!<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5785" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> </span></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5787" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5786" style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">In the attached “position paper”, I have focused modestly on removing wave-particle duality through some unambiguous experiments with particle beams. Unfortunately, I do not have enough funds to carry out the proposed experiments. I will be delighted to collaborate.</span></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5788" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> </span></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5789" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">Your critical opinions will be highly valued by me.</span></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5790" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> </span></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5791" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">Sincerely,</span></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5792" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">Chandra.</span></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" id="yiv3312078618yui_3_16_0_1_1438222227286_5794" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" name="_MailEndCompose" href="x-msg://4/UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> </span></a></div><div class="yiv3312078618qtdSeparateBR"><br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class=""></div><div class="yiv3312078618yqt9407723862" id="yiv3312078618yqt18550"><div class=""><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-top-width: 1pt; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><b class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class="">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Richard Gauthier<br clear="none" class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Wednesday, July 29, 2015 4:21 PM<br clear="none" class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none" class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Weyl Fermions</span></div></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;">John,</div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> In the last paragraph it all refers to the PHOTON’s experimental momentum, not the electron’s. Sorry for the typos.</div></div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618yqt9407723862" id="yiv3312078618yqt97142"><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> Richard</div></div><div class=""><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618yqt9407723862" id="yiv3312078618yqt70331"><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;">On Jul 29, 2015, at 1:14 PM, Richard Gauthier <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618yqt9407723862" id="yiv3312078618yqt91376"><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;">Hello John,</div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618yqt9407723862" id="yiv3312078618yqt28559"><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> Thank you for your detailed replies to my questions about your electron model. I think that despite our significant differences in modeling the electron, we could agree on the following statement: "The electron is a spin 1/2 light-speed configuration having the electron’s charge, rest mass and 720-degree symmetry, and generating the de Broglie wavelength.” Agree or not? (And Chip and Vivian would you agree with this or not?) </div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> Your approach to modeling the electron with a light-speed configuration gives more detailed models of the photon and the electron, including approximate calculations of the electron’s magnetic moment and electric charge. My generic approach to a circulating photon modeling a relativistic electron does not include a specific model of the photon that models a relativistic electron, but emphasizes 1) the charged photon's total circulating energy, momentum and wavelength, 2) the charged photon’s helical trajectory and how it depends on the electron’s speed, and 3) gives a short derivation of the de Broglie wavelength and the quantum wave function for a free electron from the helically circulating charged photon’s wavelength. </div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> One point where we differ on terminology is whether the electron model's light-speed configuration should be called a spin 1/2 charged photon or a spin 1/2 light-speed configuration (or re-circulating configuration) with an associated electric charge. I emphasize what is in common with the light-speed configurations for an electron and a photon: both configurations move at light-speed with a frequency f and a wavelength lambda related by c=f lambda, where E=hf and p=h/lambda. You emphasize the differences in the two configurations (spin 1/2 configuration versus spin 1 configuration, curving motion versus straight motion, rest mass versus no rest mass, and charge versus no charge.) I hope I am not oversimplifying here. This is why I favor two photon “varieties" having some similar and some different features.</div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> I’ve gone through your two SPIE papers on the photon and the electron, passing lightly over the proposed new algebra. I noticed a significant typo (the same in both papers) where you state (on page 14 in the photon paper and page 8 in the electron paper) that the photon’s rotation horizon = c w (where w is omega) where it should actually be rotation horizon = c/w .</div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> I have a related question about how you derive hbar for the photon’s z-component of spin in your photon paper on p 14, which you repeat in your electron paper on p 8. You use the photon's experimental momentum (hbar w)/c to derive a maximum angular momentum of the photon hbar for your model, by multiplying the electron’s experimental momentum (hbar w)/c by the photon’s rotation horizon = c/w (when the typo is corrected ) to get spin hbar. But if the electron’s momentum is in the z (longitudinal) direction, you cannot derive the z-component Sz of the photon’s spin from the photon’s z-component of momentum (hbar w)/c . You would need to have a circulating component of the photon’s momentum in the transverse or x-y plane to derive by S = r x p a spin component Sz of the photon in the z direction. Or am I missing something? (In my model of the photon, described elsewhere, I do have such a momentum component in the transverse direction).</div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> with best regards,</div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> Richard</div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div></div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618yqt9407723862" id="yiv3312078618yqt61235"><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618yqt9407723862" id="yiv3312078618yqt63370"><div class=""><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;" class=""><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;">On Jul 21, 2015, at 6:45 AM, John Williamson <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:</div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class="">Hi Richard,<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Answers in blue</span></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""></span><hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" class=""></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><b class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class="">From:</span></b><span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class=""> </span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class="">Richard Gauthier [<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>]<br clear="none" class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span>Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:06 AM<br clear="none" class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; John Williamson<br clear="none" class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Weyl Fermions</span></div></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class="">Hello John,</span></div></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> Thank you for resending your updated position paper as a text file. Somehow I missed the pdf version.</span></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.1pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> I find your new approach to modeling the electron by a light-speed configuration of waves quite exciting. It definitely seems like an important step in the right direction of describing the electron as a circulating light-speed configuration having the electron’s rest mass and spin 1/2 hbar and a 720-degree symmetry. </span></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.1pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> The following are several questions that I would ask of your electron model or any other specific model of a light-speed configuration modeling an electron.</span></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.1pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class="">1) Is the rest mass of your light-speed configuration invariant for all speeds of the electron you are modeling?<br clear="none" class=""><span style="color: blue;" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Yes</span></span></div></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""><br clear="none" class="">2) Does your light-speed configuration follow a helical trajectory for a moving electron? If so, what is the radius of this helical trajectory in terms of Ro = hbar/2mc and how does it depend on gamma of the electron?<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class=""><span style="color: blue;" class="">Mu. The question makes no sense. As I keep saying, for me it makes no sense to ask about the electrons "trajectory".<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span> One calculates momenta. It has a specific angular momentum. This is related by a size and a (perpendicular) momentum (this is ok). Even by the (much simpler) uncertainty principle, one cannot say where the (precisely defined) momentum is at all. It is completely undefined. The electron is a function of seven components in the new theory, none of which are space or time alone. You need to project the trajectory onto space, but even if you do this it will absolutely not represent what is really going on.</span> <span style="color: blue;" class="">If you want to put space in as well you will have ten. This cannot be simply modelled by a 3D path! Gamma is, for me, too simple. It pertains to the effect on a little lump of mass. You have to get gamma out. You should not be putting it in! The electron is not, and cannot be, modelled by a little lump of mass whizzing about. The internal wave-function (Eq. 21 on p9 in the first paper) varies by the factor R explained in my first paper – which only gives gamma as an average – as described there.</span></span></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.1pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class="">3) Does your light-speed configuration for an electron reduce to a size of around 10^-18 meters or less in high energy electron scattering experiments, as is experimentally found for the electron?<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class=""><span style="color: blue;" class="">Yes</span></span></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.1pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class="">4) Does your electron model follow the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 where m is the electron’s rest mass? If yes, what is the meaning of p in this equation, in relation to the light-speed configuration modeling the electron?<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class=""><span style="color: blue;" class="">Yes. Usual meaning. P is the momentum of the object as a whole. Just as in the solutions for the Dirac model.</span></span></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.1pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class="">5) Is the spin of your light-speed configuration for an electron 1/2 hbar or -1/2 hbar for all electron speeds less than c, including highly relativistic electron speeds, and not just for a resting electron?<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class=""><span style="color: blue;" class="">Yes ... spin is invariant under an L.T. Energy goes up by R, size goes down by 1/R.</span></span></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.1pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class="">6) Is the internal frequency f of your light-speed configuration of an electron proportional to the total energy of the light-speed configuration for a moving electron, i.e. does hf=gamma mc^2 for your light-speed configuration?<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class=""><span style="color: blue;" class="">There are two frequencies. They obey the "harmony of phases". One of these follows hf=gamma mc^2.</span></span></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.1pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class="">7) Is there an internal wavelength lambda of your light-speed configuration for a moving electron and is it found from c= lambda f, so that lambda = h/(gamma mc)?<span style="color: blue;" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Kind of - but it is a bit more complicated than that – as above.</span></span></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.1pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class="">8) Does your light-speed configuration for an electron generate the de Broglie wavelength along the direction that the light-speed configuration is moving? Does it generate the electron’s group velocity c^2/v in this direction?<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Yes</span></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.1pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class="">9) Does your light-speed electron wave equation generate the quantum wave function Ae^i(kx-wt) for a free electron along the direction that the electron is moving, where k is p/hbar of the electron and w = E/hbar of the electron?<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class=""><span style="color: blue;" class="">No. Definitely not. Firstly there is no such thing as i. Secondly, the above equation is anyway too simple. It is not relativistic. It is just a solution to the non-rel Scroedinger equation. That is as good as we have had for a century or so, but we need to do better!<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">A proper (in the relativistic sense) wave-function should look just like "light in a box". Like eq. 21 then. If solutions such as that are confined, the co-moving and anti-moving components generate an equation with both a de-Broglie wave (from interference) and a Compton wave. This is like wave (like light in a box) -with two different "velocities" those these are only apparent w.r.t. the observer frame. Within the system itself everything remains at light-speed. The changes are only apparent because of the relative velocity of observer and observed – according to the normal laws of relativity.</span></span></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.1pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> with best regards,</span></div></div><div style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 17.5pt;" class=""> Richard</span></div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class="">Regards, John.</span></div></div><div style="margin-bottom: 10pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class="">On Jul 19, 2015, at 7:12 PM, John Williamson <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:</span></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class="">Hello Richard,<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Do not have a "Word" document I'm afraid. Gave up on it a couple of decades ago. Here it is in marked up plain text (below). You have an abstract as well ... not available in the pdf as it is commented out. You could get this by changing "tex" to "txt" and just opening the attachment with word or any other text editor. Could you not read the pdf version?<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Regards, John.<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">\title{Electron nature: light, vacuum or something else?}<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">%>>>> The author is responsible for formatting the<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">% author list and their institutions. Use \skiplinehalf<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">% to separate author list from addresses and between each address.<br clear="none" class="">% The correspondence between each author and his/her address<br clear="none" class="">% can be indicated with a superscript in italics,<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">% which is easily obtained with \supit{}.<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">\author{J.G.Williamson\supit{a}<br clear="none" class="">\skiplinehalf<br clear="none" class="">\supit{a} University of Glasgow, College of Science \& Engineering, Glasgow G12 8LT, Scotland;<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">}<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">%>>>> Further information about the authors, other than their<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">% institution and addresses, should be included as a footnote,<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">% which is facilitated by the \authorinfo{} command.<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">\authorinfo{Further author information: (Send correspondence to J.G. Williamson)<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="x-msg://4/UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">\\J.G</a>. Williamson: E-mail:<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:john.williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">john.williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>, Telephone: +44 141 330 4923}<br clear="none" class="">%%>>>> when using amstex, you need to use @@ instead of @<br clear="none" class=""> <br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">%>>>> uncomment following for page numbers<br clear="none" class="">%\pagestyle{plain} <span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">%>>>> uncomment following to start page numbering at 301<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">%\setcounter{page}{301}<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class=""> <br clear="none" class=""> \begin{document}<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class=""> \maketitle<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">%\begin{abstract}<br clear="none" class="">%A minimal theory is developed of the flow of root-energy with forms based on the experimental properties of four-dimensional space-time. In light, this encompasses the Maxwell equations, but allows only quantised solutions. For (rest-massive-) particles, it reflects the same solution set as the Dirac equation, spin up and spin down electrons and positrons, but over such things as fields and currents rather than more abstract concepts such as spinors. In interactions it underpins quantum electrodynamics in that it derives charge, sees the electromagnetic interaction as an exchange of energy between charged particles through light, but gives a more physical perspective on the origins of results such as the anomalous magnetic moment. \end{abstract}<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">%>>>> Include a list of keywords after the abstract<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">%\keywords{Electromagnetic electron positron photon}<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%<br clear="none" class="">\section{Position}<br clear="none" class="">\label{sec:intro} % \label{} allows reference to this section<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Firstly: nature (as measured in experiment) is primary. Theories are merely speculations one makes up to try to describe her underlying processes. Mathematics is a powerful, but formal and strictly limited, language which may be used to try to describe certain aspects of whatever nature does in reality. Mere mathematics, however, must not be allowed to cloud any of the fundamental features of nature observed in experiment. Any (practically useful) mathematics should follow nature, not the other way round. If one cannot measure it, it is, (for all practical purposes) not there. Any theories predicting things which are (observed to be) just not there should be modified or discarded. This is the proper process of the scientific method. It may be that the logical conclusion of this process, the solution of Hilbert's sixth problem such that a complete mathematical system describing all of nature just and no more, is not possible at all. Though that remains to be seen, it is worth striving for.%It may, however, be possible to prove at some point that such a system is not possible.<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Having said this, the body of theory as it stands in the early twenty-first century, is a marvellous intellectual achievement garnered through generations of the thinking of many excellent folk. Human theory encapsulates a great deal of truth about the nature of reality. Any new theories should either encompass, improve on, or underpin that thinking - or they are likely to fail. The creation of new theories may be a deeply creative process - but it is also strongly constrained.<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Taking a particular position, then, is not an easy choice. Thinking is fluid. Theory is something one makes up. It is perfectly possible to consider many points of view - each with their merits and problems, all at the same time. It is still possible to the see the merits and beauty of Martin van der Mark's and my quarter-century-old model of the electron as a localised photon, while no longer believing in the existence as independent entities of, not only the photon but also the electron. This is not to say, of course, that I was wrong then and am right now - who knows?<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">My current favoured position is that there is only space, time and a sort of root-energy. These five degrees of freedom, for me, are sufficient to describe most, if not all, of that which has been so far observed in human experiment. In particular they are sufficient to derive models of the photon, electron and other particles. It proves possible to derive why and how light is quantised, what the underlying nature of the elementary charge and the quantum spin is and what the underlying nature of some of the fundamental forces of nature are. They are also, in my view, sufficient to either encompass, underpin or improve the existing practical theories of current physics. The development of a new, continuous linear theory to describe this has been the subject of the papers presented last year at FFP14 and submitted this year to this conference. If this approach should prove of any merit, it will remain the work of many man-years to develop the solutions to the level of those of Schroedinger, Maxwell or Dirac theories. Even if the new theory is worth anything, there remains much work to be done.<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">The new theoretical view holds that space and time are primary. They exist everywhere (and for all time!), whether or not any energy is present within them or not. The root four dimensions of space and time may also manifest in products and quotients of the base four ``directions". This allows root-energy to manifest not only in vectors, but also such things as physical areas - as the product of space with perpendicular space. Multiplying any space (or time) with a parallel space gives a conceptually different kind of object to an area. The sequence area-line-point would identify this with a ``point". This object, however, is not a point in the way the word is usually understood. Just as a line may be extended to one of any length (magnitude), this kind of point may also have any magnitude. If one attributes the experimentally measured (relativistic) properties of space and time to lines in space and time, then the lines must vary as a four-vector, the plane product as a field, and the point product as a Lorentz invariant. Introducing root-energy into these forms then gives stuff with the physical properties of a 4-current density, an electromagnetic field and a a rest-mass, respectively. Further, the volume forms act as a root angular momentum - a spin. It is simple to show that the equations describing this for the field are identical to the four, coupled differential equations known as the Maxwell equations. A new, general, equation over the sixteen terms (1 scalar, 4-vector, 6-field, 4-spin, 1 pseudo-scalar) is then:<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">\begin{eqnarray}<br clear="none" class="">\label{Max+}<br clear="none" class="">%\begin{flalign}<br clear="none" class="">\mathcal{D}_4 G_{16} = \alpha_0(\vec{\nabla}\inprod\vec{E} + \partial_{0} P)+ \alpha_{123}(\vec{\nabla}\inprod\vec{B} + \partial_{0} Q) +<br clear="none" class="">\alpha_{i}\left(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{B} - \partial_0\vec{E} - \vec{\nabla} P\right) +<br clear="none" class="">\alpha_{0ij} (\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E} <span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">+ \partial_0\vec{B} + \vec{\nabla} Q) + \nonumber\\<br clear="none" class="">\alpha_{P} (\vec{\nabla}\inprod\vec{A} + \partial_0 A_{0}) +<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">\alpha_{0123}(\vec{\nabla}\inprod\vec{T}+\partial_0 T_{0})<br clear="none" class="">+ \alpha_{i0} \left( \partial_0\vec{A} + \vec{\nabla} A_{0} + \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{T} \right)+<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">\alpha_{jk} \left( \partial_0\vec{T} + \vec{\nabla} T_{0} - \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}\right) = 0<br clear="none" class="">%\end{flalign}<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class="">\end{eqnarray}<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Here the basis vectors, denoted by the $\alpha$'s have one numerical index for the vectors, two for the planes, three for the volumes and four for the 4-volume. $\mathcal{D}_4$ is a 4-vector differential. $E$ and $B$ denote the electric and magnetic fields, and $A$ and $T$ the vector and tri-vector potential respectively. $P$ and $Q$ are rest-mass like components invariant under a Lorentz transformation. The special root-energy density scalar is denoted $\alpha_P$. For the field only part, the first four equations without the $P$ and $Q$ terms, this reduces to Maxwell's equations. The new approach, however, allows new kinds of holomorphic, covariant solutions to the pure field (light-speed) Maxwell equations describing a covariant wave. Viz, for a single photon travelling in the ``$z$" direction:<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span><br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">\begin{eqnarray}<br clear="none" class="">\label{CircL+}<br clear="none" class="">F_{L} = H_0 U_F R {{\mathcal{E }} (\alpha_{10} + \alpha_{31}) e^{ {\mathcal{E } \over \hbar} R( \alpha_{3} {z \over c }- \alpha_{0} t) \alpha_{012}}} = {F_{0} R (\alpha_{10} + \alpha_{31}) e^{ R(k\alpha_{3} {z }- \omega \alpha_{0} t) \alpha_{012}}} = \mathcal{F} \mathcal{W}<br clear="none" class="">\end{eqnarray}<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Except for $U_F$, which is a new universal constant converting to field units and related to $\hbar$, the pre-factor terms are normalisation terms in phase ($H_0$) and energy ( R and $\mathcal{E}$). The crucial features of this new wave function are that the photon energy ($\mathcal{E}$), appears in both pre-factor and exponent, that the argument of the exponential is not a simple number but contains explicitly the proper nature of space and time in the form of $\alpha_{3}$ a proper unit vector in the direction of $z$ and $\alpha_{0}$, a proper unit vector in the direction of time and that a proper unit angular momentum ($\alpha_{012}$) is required for this to be a travelling wave solution. Lorentz transformations are described in the wave-function by the single parameter $R$ - scaling both field and frequency linearly. This allows the same photon to be described in different frames - particularly those of the emitter and absorber. The function describes photons of any energy from gamma to radio and beyond - right to the limit of as close as you like to zero energy. %It is, to the knowledge of the author, the first proper, covariant photon wave-function.<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Extending the theory to include some of the new terms, especially the root invariant rest-mass term $P$, allows qualitatively new kinds of solutions. These contain, as well as the rest-mass component, re-circulating field components. Such solutions are necessarily charged, have half-integral spin and have the proper 720 degree symmetry of fermions. These solutions are identified with the electron and positron. The new theory then describes both light-speed field only solutions corresponding to the photon and re-circulating solutions corresponding to the electron on the same footing. It allows, for the first time, the description of the process of particle-antiparticle pair creation within a single linear theory.<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Within the theory, the elementary charge $q$ may be estimated in terms of the elementary spin $\hbar$ (or vice-versa) and is found to be close to the value observed in experiment. The new solutions describe both both light and material particles and arise from the constraints imposed by the deeper principles of the nature of space and time and the linearity of field and energy. Quantisation arises from the rigorous development of relativity.<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">In the new theory space and time - the defining components of the physical vacuum, are primary and are always present. Space and time condition any root-energy into different forms, manifesting as mass (scalar), charge and current (vector), fields (areas), spin (volumes) and a spin root (a 4-dimensional volume).The theory allows, however, for the possibility that the root-energy at certain places may go to zero - an empty vacuum. For all practical purposes, of course, ``free" space is always full of the photons that paint our world - even if they are only those of the 3K background radiation. The answer then, for me, to the question posed in the title is ``all three". With ``something else", here being the proper nature of space and time - the underlying form of the ``vacuum" present at all localities.<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">- John Williamson, Troon, Scotland, July 17th, 2015<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">\end{document}<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;"><hr align="center" size="3" width="100%" class=""></div><div id="yiv3312078618divRpF623746" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 12pt;"><b class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class="">From:</span></b><span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class=""> </span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class="">General [<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>]<br clear="none" class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span>Monday, July 20, 2015 12:51 AM<br clear="none" class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none" class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Weyl Fermions</span></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;">Hi John,</div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> Could you please send your position document in Word or as a text file. I am unable to open a tex (Latex) file. Thanks.</div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> Richard</div></div><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div><div class=""><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;" class=""><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;">On Jul 18, 2015, at 10:17 AM, John Williamson <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:</div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class="">Dear all,<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Please find attached the "position" document I sent to SPIE this morning.<br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class="">Regards, John W.</span></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><SPIE-position-JGW.pdf><span style="font-size: 9pt;" class="">_______________________________________________<br clear="none" class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt;" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size: 9pt;" class=""><br clear="none" class=""><a href="</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt;" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-size: 9pt;" class="">"><br clear="none" class="">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none" class=""></a></span></div></div></blockquote></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div></div></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;" class="">_______________________________________________<br clear="none" class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="yiv3312078618apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt;" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size: 9pt;" class=""><br clear="none" class=""><a href="</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt;" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-size: 9pt;" class="">"><br clear="none" class="">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none" class=""></a></span></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div class="yiv3312078618MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;"> </div></div></div></div></div><br clear="none" class=""><div class="yiv3312078618yqt9407723862" id="yiv3312078618yqt89705">_______________________________________________<br clear="none" class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a><br clear="none" class=""><a href="<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br clear="none" class="">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none" class=""></a><br clear="none" class=""></div><br clear="none" class=""><br clear="none" class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">"></span><br style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Click here to unsubscribe</span><br style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""></a></span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>