<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><base href="x-msg://1646/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><font size="4">Dear All,</font><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">I have been a little busy lately and it doesn't seem like it is going to ease up for a while. I have been browsing over the correspondence. A few features are apparent.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">1)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Regarding the photon. For my part I am quite happy to accept the model forwarded by John Williamson and Martin van der Mark. To me their physics seems to make sense. My major point of contention with them is that the photon can extend between the emitter and absorber, even if that distance is billions of light years apart. To me this is a mathematical derivation introduced from the Minkowski space-time continuum, due to c^2t^2 - r^2 = 0, when a photon is travelling at c. An equally valid physical explanation is that time stands still for a photon. As far as a photon is concerned, it is emitted, travels for zero time in its own frame of reference, although with a real time to an external observer not travelling at c. It is subsequently absorbed when it contacts an absorbing medium such an electron. Photons can be scattered, losing part of their energy, as for example in Compton scattering. IMHO their descriptions appear to fit observation better than any alternative I have seen. There is still some more detail required.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">2)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I note that much attention is given to trying to get properties of the photon in particular and matter generally to fit quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR). I can understand this trend because they are both touted as the most accurate experimentally tested theories yet forwarded. However they do have some problems. A unity between the two has eluded all theoreticians to date. General relativity has been used as the basis of the Big Bang theory of formation of the universe. In explaining the observed universe, that theory is in error by 24 times the mass/energy of the observed universe plus ≈ 10^60 different universes in a multiverse. Quantum mechanics requires a very high energy density to explain some of its calculations. I have seen a figure of ≈ 10^110 Joule/ cubic metre (J/m^3), while astronomers measure something like 10^-10 J/m^3. Irrespective of what they predict, both of those are significant errors that would not be tolerated in any other field of human endeavour. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">3)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Quantum mechanics is based upon Schrödinger's and Dirac's wave equations. It was developed because the electron's properties were too difficult to explain in terms of a particle, whereas a wave gives an electron a probability of being somewhere within its waveform, which can extend over large distances (+ infinity to - infinity have been quoted). The justification for using it has been its de Broglie wavelength. As far as I am concerned an electron is a particle. Its rotating photon structure gives rise to its de Broglie wavelength. Whether you believe Richard G's derivation or my derivation (Ref 1) is irrelevant for this discussion. There is nothing in the de Broglie wavelength of a particle that can cause it to do anything except undergo diffraction. The double slit experiment doesn't prove the electron is a wave. It shows that the electron has an electromagnetic wave associated with it. When the electron approaches a double slit, it will pass through one of them, while its de Broglie wave will pass through both slits. Upon passing through both slits, the de Broglie wave unites with the electron and its direction is changed (depending upon a number of factors). When enough electrons have passed through the double slit, the wave diffraction pattern will be observed. Ref 1 also gives a reason for the special relativity corrections of mass, length and time, as well as predicting a diminution of radius with velocity. It shows the nature of an electron's spin and suggests a physical origin electric charge.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">To measure which slit the electron passes through requires the application of a "voltage" sensor to at least one slit. That sensor, no matter how sensitive it is, will interfere with the electromagnetic field. Because the de Broglie wave is a component of the electron's electromagnetic field, it will interfere with that field. Once that field has been interfered with, it is no longer intact and cannot cause the electron to respond to its de Broglie wave diffraction. In the same manner, an electron's de Broglie wavelength is directly related to its energy. At the same time there are only a limited number of protons than can attract electrons to a nucleus, 1 for H up to 92 for U. The binding energy of an electron to a proton, Rydberg energy (RE) determines its wavelength. It is fixed. Under the rotating photon model of matter, an electron is an enormous gyroscope. Its whole mass is rotating at c at a radius hundreds of time larger than the diameter of a proton. Like any other gyroscope, it can't change its direction unless it can exchange angular momentum with another particle. In order to change direction, an electron must find another electron to form a pair. This becomes the basis of electron pairing that is responsible for chemical reactions. Quantisation of electron orbits are not necessary to explain why electrons' don't collapse into the nucleus. They are far too large to fit into even a uranium nucleus and even if they could, there are no energy levels in a stable nucleus to absorb them. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">What I am trying to say in the above is that an electron is a particle and should be treated as such. The unique properties of the rotating photon model of the electron can explain many of its "quantum" properties. I would like to suggest you do not try to fit properties of either photons or particles into quantum mechanics. Rather try to fit them to what is observed. Observation is reality. IMHO early theoreticians (Schrödinger, Dirac et al.) did not have any known structure for an electron to apply particle physics to them. They had no alternative but to turn to wave equations for solutions. I would like to suggest that, using the rotating photon model of an electron, you should try to match it to observation. In my first attempt at that, Ref 1, I believe I gave a few matches to observation, as well as predicting a number of unknown properties. I am happy to let my theory survive on the detection of the predictions.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">It is the same with general relativity. Einstein's field equations for space outside matter (gravity as we know it) fits all observations against which it has been tested. However it has only been tested for r > ≈ 10,000 alpha (alpha = Schwarzschild radius 2GM/c^2). Using the principle of conservation of energy for the photon as I believe is described by John W and Martin vdM, it is possible to derive an alternative space-time geometry equation that matches all the observations that support Einstein's general theory of relativity at r >> alpha, but don't predict a singularity at r = alpha (Ref 2). </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">It is also possible to derive a similar expression for space-time inside matter, which describes the large scale gravitational attraction of the universe. When one does that it becomes apparent that an infinite static universe will not collapse under the gravitational attraction of its own mass. This leaves the possibility of an infinite static universe as an acceptable alternative to the Big Bang theory. In this theory there is no requirement for a cosmological constant to explain the non collapse stability of the universe if it is static. The observed ≈ 2.7˚K background temperature of space is just that. The tiny fluctuations are not due to the ripples in space-time about which galaxies formed. The higher temperature regions are close to galaxies because inter galactic gas and dust close to galaxies are heated more than those in the deep space between galaxies. I have predicted several measurements that can be made to distinguish between a universe that started from a Big Bang and one that is infinite and static. (This part of my work has not yet been published although I have put it together into a book form which is not yet available electronically. John W, FYI I have significantly revised several aspects of the manuscript I gave you in July to overcome some if its significant deficiencies.)</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">4)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>There still appears to be a lack of experimental support for the theoretical ideas forward by various members in this group. I will restate, as does John W, experiment is the only arbiter of science. Using an eminent person's theory to support your theory may give credibility to your theory in the eyes of some people. It does nothing to support an observation. I will restate my earlier comment: If your want your theory to be accepted you need to show how it matches known experimental data and preferably make testable predictions. Without that these discussions go off at tangents that lead to nowhere and simply cause confusion. IMHO that is the outcome of the past few months discussion. I have been unable to pick up any conclusions that suggest otherwise but will be happy to read any summary that can show how the discussions have led to progress in the understanding of the nature of the photon.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Please note my change of email address to "<a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</a>". Could you please change my details, or indicate how I could make that change. Thank you! The website "<a href="http://www.universephysics.com">www.universephysics.com</a>" is a website in progress. It has some information about my work, which I will update when I get more time and a better electronic format for my work. This work does make dozens of experimentally testable predictions and I am happy to let experiment adjudicate on it when I get it onto the website. I append a page from my study, which I have called "Explaining the Physical Universe" to suggest you should stop trying to match you theory to QM and GR and match observation. FYI my findings are close to those of Einstein's. I suggest that anyone who disagrees with SR and GR doesn't understand his work. I am happy to accept that GR is based upon mass distorting space time. I use different sets of calculations to get different metrics which match observation. My metric for space inside matter - the structure of the universe - shows why an infinite static universe will not collapse under its own mass without the need for a cosmological constant.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Cheers,</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Viv Robinson</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div>Ref 1 <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a href="http://www.la-press.com/journal-particle-physics-insights-j105">http://www.la-press.com/journal-particle-physics-insights-j105</a> (click on "A Proposal on the Structure and Properties of the Electron")</div><div>Ref 2<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a href="http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=35823">http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=35823</a></div><div><br></div><div></div></body></html>