<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
@font-face
{font-family:Times}
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
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
span.EmailStyle20
{color:black}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
-->
</style><style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS ??";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-520092929 1073786111 9 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-520082689 -1073717157 41 0 66047 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Hello Chip and Richard,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">I had been meaning to add to this post for some time, but did not find a free moment
till now.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Will comment below, first on Chip’s post, then on Richard’s. This is also relevant to
John Hodge's recent post on the nature of charge.<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Feel like going in red this morning ….</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>of comments from what a model…</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Hi Richard</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Correct me if I am wrong here. It seems that there
is not a requirement that the electron actually be a sphere, but only that its scattering characteristics are the same as that of a sphere. Do you think this statement is correct?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Yes and no. What is known is that the scattering is sphere-like
– in that there is no “structure function” for the electron. This means, as I have said many times before, that the scattering is consistent with it being a SINGLE particle, with a spherical – inverse square law of scattering.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Saying the electron must “be a sphere” anyway begs the
question – what<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>kind of sphere? Is it a 3-sphere in 3-space? A four-sphere in 4D space? A sphere in the three components of the electric field (a bivector space)?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Something more complicated than any of these?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">I’m afraid, ladies and gentlemen, that the answer is the
latter, though of the three specific static cases I think the third case comes closest. The electron, however, is certainly not static – it is very very dynamic.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">
General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:46 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>; David Williamson <david.williamson@ed.ac.uk>; pete@leathergoth.com; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Hello John D and Albrecht,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> We’re not quite there by merely replacing Albrecht’s
two circulating massless particles by a double-looping photon. By doing this the radius of the circle drops from hbar/mc to hbar/2mc because the total loop length is still one Compton wavelength. A double loop of length 1 Compton wavelength h/mc has half
the radius of a single loop and therefore (if the circulating photon carries charge -e moving at light speed) half the calculated magnetic moment of Albrecht’s model, i.e. 1/2 Bohr magneton. The loss in magnetic moment from Albrecht’s 2-particle model has
to be made up in some other way. But this double-looping photon model of the electron has spin 1/2 hbar while Albrecht's two-particle model has spin 1 hbar. No argument about retarded light-speed forces between his 2 light-speed circling massless particles
will bring the total spin of the two-particle system down to exactly 1/2 hbar while keeping its magnetic moment at 1 Bohr magneton. That would be like pulling a magical rabbit out of a hat which so far only Dirac with his equation has been able to do successfully
(he wasn’t called a magician for nothing.) The Williamson - van der Mark 1997 electron model comes close with its proposed centrally located static electric charge -e inferred from their twisting double-looping uncharged photon’s inward pointing electric fields
at the model’s equator. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The WvdM model does get the magic rabbit right. Not only
that it gets the QED first order correction to the magic rabbit right (about 1 part in a thousand bigger) – which the Dirac model does not do.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">(But what happened to their double-looping photon's
electric field at and near the model’s two poles?) . </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Richard, you are still thinking about a little photon
bullet whizzing around in 3-space only. This is not good enough. You need to do what you were accusing Einstein of not doing! Intuition, insight and imagination!
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The original<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>1997 paper already explained the transport around the torus was not in space but in space-time. The rotations are not just in 3-space but in a higher-dimensional space. In three space one cannot have, simultaneously the two axes of “rotation” that are
needed for the WvdM model. In 4-space one can. This is the “quantum bicycle” I keep trying to explain to you. A 4-spatial rotation is still (in my present view) too simple, but illustrates (one of the) salient points. Imagine a space x y z w. Now allow a rotation
in the xy plane, with a simultaneous rotation in the zw plane. Now let the path traced by a point (x y z w) fill 4-space. Let the length of this path (x squared plus y squared plus z squared plus w squared) oscillate in phase with “rotations”. This is the
program I implemented in the little java applet I circulated a few months ago. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>What does one observe when one projects this “motion” onto 3-space? You can find lots of these projections on the web if you look. It is kind of difficult to do it in your head – but dead easy to implement it in a computer . Anyway, in one kind of projection
one observes a sphere, in another a torus. For such flows, it is perfectly possible (even necessary) to have a spherical projection for the electric field, while having a toroidal form in a projection onto other spaces. Thinking in just 3D space severely limits
ones imagination!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Now the motion I’m envisioning nowadays is more complicated
than merely 4-dimesional, as there are far more “planes” than just the six in 4-D space. The electron rotation has three rotation planes (at least!) Looking at the photon solution (eq 21) one rotation is a normal spatial plane (xy), the other in the “plane”
formed from the scalar and the pseudoscalar. This latter pair are isomorphic to complex numbers. This means the photon “twist” is already in a 4-component space, just not that of x y z t, but that of scalar, pseudocalar, electric and magnetic field “space”.
Now to get the electron solution, one takes that<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>already “4-dimensional” motion and lets it loop again “rotating” it in yet another plane in the even subset (of eight!) dimensions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>The resulting object is rotating in (at least) nine “dimensions” (eight modulated by “time”). What one observes is a projection of this. What is required by experiment is that the interaction part (the electric field part) is spherical, at least if one
does not come within touching distance when direct field interference kicks in. At these distances the Pauli exclusion principle kicks in, as described in my 2012 paper at MENDEL.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This model can’t convincingly explain how a sphere enclosing
a double-looping uncharged photon can have a non-zero divergence of its electric field (indicating a non-zero enclosed electric charge) without violating Gauss’ law (the first Maxwell equation).
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This is only true if you take the electron to be constituted
a massless photon (as you do).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Let me try, once again, to convince you.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Look at Gauss’s law in the full set of equations in my
paper.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This is equation 6. There is another term, as well as the electric field divergence (which is the DEFINITION of “charge”) corresponding to root-mass exchange.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>This is the nature of charge in QED. The electric field divergence, in the new equations, is non zero if there is mass-energy exchange.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>That is (part of) the root of charge. It is not the whole story – as photon exchange needs ALL eight (well at least seven) of the even terms to explain it properly. It does mean that Gauss’s law needs to be extended by allowing for mass-energy exchange
though. This is anyway the case, if you think about it, in both QED and the inhomogenous Maxwell equations (where,in both, you put in the “charge by hand!).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Given the state- of play of Martin and my model in 2015
there are now two ways to calculate the charge in the resulting model. The first is to use the curvature, and the calculated electric field, to get the charge in terms of Plancks’ constant (or vice versa). This is what Martin and I did in out 1997 paper. The
other way is to integrate the cross-section of charge-charge interactions over the universe – which requires a knowledge of the number of charges in the universe and their distribution. This is harder. Both give values for the elementary charge within the
right ballpark, however.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">I think that in order to retain a viable double-looping
photon model of the electron, one may have to bite the bullet and accept that the circulating double-looping photon is itself electrically charged and also has a rest mass of 0.511 MeV/c^2 and a spin of 1/2 hbar.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Absolutely not! You cannot claim to get charge out if
you put it in! Also – I have said this before and will not change my mind – you cannot put it in and stay with a massless photon. You just can’t Do the maths! Integrate the mass-energy in any one frame due to the charge alone and you will get a non-zero mass.
This mass will be minimal where the field is radial – and will increase for any other frame. End of story. You can SAY you have a “charged massless photon”– but this does not make it consistent with reality! Sorry!<a name="_GoBack"></a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">You can say (and be right) that you have a charged electron
with rest mass (if this is what you mean) – but this is just what we have all been saying all along – so what is the difference?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> By the way, Albrecht’s two circulating particles
may each have no rest mass as he describes, but they certainly each carry 1/2 of 0.511 MeV of a resting electron's total energy. This strongly implies that they are two circulating photons (or gluons?) each having energy 1/2 x 0.511 MeV. This also gives his
electron model a spin of 1 hbar.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> with best regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> Richard</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Regards, from John.</span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>