<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.emailstyle18
{mso-style-name:emailstyle18;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi John W<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Thank you.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 07, 2015 4:00 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey <nick@bailey-family.org.uk>; Anthony Booth <abooth@ieee.org>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] What a model of photons must do<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>Yes, <br><br>I know why they are not stable, both from within the new model and from the standpoint of conventional physics.<br><br>In the latter case there are less massive states to which they can decay and a (weak - squared) coupling to get there. In my model it is similar, but with the muon and -electron neutrinos being 2D particles (rather than the 3D electron and the 1D photon). Almost (but not quite) rest-massless.<br><br>Compliments by the way. I really think you ARE starting to get this!<br><br>Regards, John.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF822359><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk]<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 07, 2015 9:55 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; Mark, Martin van der<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] What a model of photons must do</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>Hello again,<br><br>Sorry, forgot about the electron, muon and tauon<br><br>Electron stability is more complicated because of the charge which is an inter-action (so external stuff must be taken into account) - but the internal motion is also force free. <br><br>The inter-action force is a confinement force, however, which Martin first calculated a couple of decades ago. It is about the right size (if I remember correctly), given the size of the universe and the number of particles therein, to account for (roughly) the kind of curvature (mass) one sees in the physical electron. If one was sure of the mechanism (there is an issue with ac v dc and the pre-existence of interactions at very large times(and hence distances) one could invert this to extract the number of charges in the (effective) universe.<br><br>My daft model for the muon and tauon masses (right to a few percent though it is) also gives confinement for these in the same way - but makes them more massive in the correct ratio.<br><br>Regards, John.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF141172><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk]<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 07, 2015 9:48 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; Mark, Martin van der<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] What a model of photons must do</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>Hello Chip,<br><br>No it is not the twist per-se that gives confinement - it is a lot better than that.<br><br>The new equations are a set of equations of motion for the field, for current, for angular momentum and for mass. Their being zero (that is the total first differential of the sixteen components constituting light and material systems being zero) is a sufficient condition that the total generalised (Lorentz) force acting on each and every component is also zero. These are a sort of extended Newtons laws for mass, current, field and angular momentum. Indeed if you just take the mass component you get Newtons laws, If you include the quadri-vector you get quantum mechanics, if you just take the fields you get the Maxwell equations. THis means the wave, the twist and all of that are simple consequences of the natural force-free flow. They need no extra forces other than those that are already in there.<br><br>Regards, John.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF430850><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins@gmail.com]<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 07, 2015 9:40 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] What a model of photons must do</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi John W.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>A question along a different line. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Does the “twist” in your new field equations provide for the binding force for the electron’s energy confinement? (I am thinking it does.) And have you calculated stability for the electron, and muon, as they would likely be instantiated, using your new field equations?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 07, 2015 2:19 AM<br><b>To:</b> Hodge John <</span><a href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>jchodge@frontier.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <</span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>><br><b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey <</span><a href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>nick@bailey-family.org.uk</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>>; Ariane Mandray <</span><a href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>>; Mark, Martin van der <</span><a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] What a model of photons must do</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>Hello John,<br><br>Sorry I have not been following these threads recently. Answers to you posts in blue below. Sorry, have only read this post (and I guess you have not yet seen many of mine!) so this may be at cross-purposes to other stuff. No matter.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF377996><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Hodge John [jchodge@frontier.com]<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 06, 2015 6:30 PM<br><b>To:</b> </span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'><br><b>Subject:</b> [General] What a model of photons must do</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6906"><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>Richard,Albrecht</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6903"><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>I suggest a “unity” requirement to help identify light’s character. Our universe is one entity. Therefore, all in it must be related. Science is questing after a Theory of Everything (ToE) that must unite the big of cosmology, the small of light and particle physics, and the classical of our size domain. The corollary is that the weird quantum assumptions should beg for another explanation following the observations in the cosmological and classics domains.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6904"><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>I like to think from observations to model other observations.<br><br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'>Agreed!</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6910"><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>Cosmology suggests that matter (discrete, extended, with edges) warps “space” (continuous or infinitely divisible, gravitational ether, plenum, quantum vacuum, fills between matter particles) and “space” directs particles. Therefore, the de Broglie–Bohm theory of 2 components of our universe seems much more likely to yield a ToE than the weird duality notion. It helps that the de Broglie–Bohm theory can derive the Schrödinger equation because real waves direct the particles.<br><br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'>Agreed here.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6912"><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>The source of the wave field that directs the particles is still a problem for the de Broglie–Bohm theory if we insist the speed of the waves is <i id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6914">c</i> or less. Thomas van Flandern has championed the idea the speed of gravitational waves is much (billions of times) faster than <i id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6916">c</i>. If only matter is limited to <i id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6918">c</i>, the instruments measurements would be the same. But that doesn’t make the “space”, gravitational ether, plenum, or quantum vacuum any less real.<br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'><br>Yes, the question here though is between models such as gravitons, which are exchanged, and those such as general relativity where the interaction is pre-existing and imprinted on the local spatial and temporal scale.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6920"><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>Afshar suggested his low intensity diffraction experiments were measuring single photons. I have some difficulty with this because laser light is stimulated emission light in pulses. <br><br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'>He has done experiments with single photons (so have many others) I have done them with single electrons (so have many others).<br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><br>However, the “walking drop” experiments show diffraction effects with only a single drop. (Linking the walking drop with de Broglie–Bohm theory seems to be becoming popular.) The unity postulate suggests the forces governing the drop may be similar to the forces governing light. Therefore, considering a single photon in the experiment at a time and the photon being directed when it is between the mask and screen is required. How does the de Broglie–Bohm theory develop the wave coming through the slit? Well, it doesn’t - oops.<br><br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'>I think if we want to go into this we should include people like Basil Hiley - who really know about this stuff.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6922"><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><br>The walking drop produces a wave as it drops then bounces off the surface. But an object staying in the medium does not produce a wave that can interfere with other waves unless in bounces in a direction perpendicular to the medium’s surface. What direction is perpendicular to the medium (space) the photon is in? The unity principle suggests only 3 directions. <br><br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'>This is too simple a view. Your analogy is confusing you. The three "dimensions" of the electric field (not three- not four) are all "perpendicular" to the further three "dimensions" of the magnetic field. There are six linearly independent d"dimensions" here. These, in turn, are all linearly independent (perpendicular then) to the three spatial directions giving nine. If you choose to superimpose them, and hence become confused, that is your problem.</span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><br><br>How are the multiple, interfering waves generated from the photon? Is the photon agitated - what is the source of the energy for this? Gravity, the mass of the drop, and the external vibration of the medium produce energy externally for the walking drop. The analogy is breaking down. <br><br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'>Indeed, the analogy has broken down. They nearly always do if they are simpler than that which they try to describe.</span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><br><br>A boat traveling along the surface of water produces waves to the side, a relatively flat surface behind and no waves in front as the boat expends all its forward energy. This is not a good analogy for a diffraction pattern exerting force on photons. An object can produce sonic waves as it moves through fluids by cavitation. But this expends tremendous energy. Indeed, this may be the reason the photons have limited speed. Over all this (producing an interference wave) is another oops. This is the cause of creating the Huygens- Fresnel wavelet idea. This principle is another violation of the unity principle and a cause of weirdness.<br><br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'>This assumes that space is a massive medium and that the vibration exits merely in space - I think the truth is a bit more complicated than that.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6924"><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>Examine the walking drop experiment again (see Johnn Bush “The new wave of pilot-wave theory” in Physics Today Aug 2015. There are also several U-Tube videos). The bouncing drop casues a wave outward from the drop. The barriers of the slit reflect the wave (this is difficult to see because of the strobing) and another part goes through the slit. This creates a standing wave that directs the drop. Quantum mechanics require not just the </span><span style='font-family:Symbol;color:black'>y</span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'> but also a </span><span style='font-family:Symbol;color:black'>y</span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>*. The conjugate could be a wave directed toward the photon. <br><br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'>In QM the conjugate is just the same wave coming backwards. In a box one has, for example y in the +ve y direction y* in the negative y direction. The sum is just a standing wave. This is well-explained in any undergrad textbook and I have taught it (to Stephen for example) in undergraduate courses.</span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><br><br>Here we have analogy - reflected wave in the unity argument and </span><span style='font-family:Symbol;color:black'>y</span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>* in quantum mechanics like the </span><span style='font-family:Symbol;color:black'>y</span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>* of the Transaction Interpretation. Other models have to assume the intensity is </span><span style='font-family:Symbol;color:black'>y</span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>*</span><span style='font-family:Symbol;color:black'>y</span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'> - more weirdness.<br><br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'>Nope - this is not weird. the y and y* are just a kind of square-root field- needing to be squared to give energy (or probability). This is a normal property of anything waving. It is no more weird than needing to take the r.m.s. value of your a.c. supply voltage and current to multiply them to get power.</span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><br> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6950"><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>Quantum mechanics also has a “no crossing” rule (assumption). Figure 5c in Bush’s paper shows red lines on the left side and blue lines on the right side entering the region near the slit. These lines cross and so that the red lines are mostly on the right and blue lines are mostly on the left beyond the slit. If photons are particles, their stream can cross.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6952"><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>The Airy patterns formed by each star through a telescopes aperture seem to not interfere. Peng, Barootkop, Roychoudhuri explored this in their Non-Interference of light (NIL) papers. If light within a beam of light from a single star can interfere, why doesn’t light (photons) interfere when the beams are coincident (yeah I know, but hold on a minute). Now consider the light from one star. It is coherent because it does from diffraction patterns when passed through a slit. Further, the light consists of several colors (energy of photon) and each color is diffracted. But the pattern has colors separated on the secondary peaks of the diffraction pattern. Each color is coherent but the multiple colors are in the beams and apparently not acting coherently as NIL suggests. Light from an incandescent source (black body radiation of a star) is not coherent initially but become coherent as it travels long distances or passes through a slit. The NIL experiments suggest coherent light can be made to be incoherent with a Fresnel lens. What makes light (photons) coherent? It cannot be the energy level of a photon because laser light is also coherent. Because each energy level photons create a slightly different diffraction pattern (different frequency), each color must produce a different frequency wave. The NIL energies is experienced in the classical world by common radios and TVs. Different frequency waves in a medium do not interfere or resonate. This implies a photon has structure and may not be the smallest thing in the universe (speculation: just because electromagnetic pulse travel at the speed of light doesn’t means the particles conveying the energy is photons - it could be these smaller particles). What characteristic of a photon determines its energy? The <i id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6954">E=mc</i>^2 relation has <i id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6956">m</i> as inertial energy.<br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'><br>See Martins SPIE paper.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6958"><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>The Equivalence Principle is still a postulate not a derived relation. What is the structure of the photon that (warps space) produces gravitation and inertia? When a particle reaction has energy released and the mass (<i id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6960">m</i>) decreases, radiation in the form of photons is released. That is, photons comprise particles. If photons comprise particles, then of course particles also diffract. Then the structure of the particles and the structure of the photons must have some means to limit their velocity to less than <i id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6962">c</i>.<br><br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'>The limitation comes about because velocity is simply not a vector. It is a division of one part of a vector with another part of the same vector. This is not widely understood, but Martin and I have written a paper about it which will come out at the next SPIE or the conference I hold next summer, if not before.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6964"><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>What makes the energy levels of photons not only different but also discrete (a characteristic of matter not a continuous medium)?<br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'><br>Read my paper.</span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><br><br> Perhaps it is the number of sub-photon matter that makes the photon have discrete level. The continuous field can have discrete influences because the waves in the field have low energy troughs that the field pushes the particles into. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6968"><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446834386130_6970"><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>Now think of single model that meets all these issues. A single experiment that is unexplained falsifies a proposed photon model.<br><br></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:blue'><br>Read my paper. Please see if you can find me an experiment it does not explain.<br><br>Regards, John.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>