<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: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=utf-8"><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:"Segoe UI";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoFootnoteText, li.MsoFootnoteText, div.MsoFootnoteText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.MsoFootnoteReference
{mso-style-priority:99;
vertical-align:super;}
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.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;}
span.FootnoteTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Footnote Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-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:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.balloontextchar0
{mso-style-name:balloontextchar;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;}
span.emailstyle20
{mso-style-name:emailstyle20;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.emailstyle21
{mso-style-name:emailstyle21;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:#20188C;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:#20188C;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:#20188C;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
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='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'>Correction. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'>I wanted to make two corrections to the post that I made 2 hours ago. First, the YouTube link that I posted only showed one of the 6 videos. The following link will show all 6 if you click on “Plan All” in the YouTube page.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGh99BOR2axiAtabtPBLcPJD7m74zzV6P"><span style='color:blue'>https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGh99BOR2axiAtabtPBLcPJD7m74zzV6P</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'>Second, I neglected to state that the equation: </span><i><u><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'>F<sub>g</sub></span></u></i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'> = <i><u>F<sub>E</sub></u></i><sup>2</sup> </span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'>assumes <i>N</i> = 1 which means that this relationship only applies when a separation distance is equal to the particle’s reduced Compton wavelength. The underline implies that the forces are in dimensionless Planck units. This is covered in more detail in the Foundation paper where it is equation 19.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'>John M. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'><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'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Macken<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 30, 2015 3:09 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'John Williamson' <John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk>; Nature of Light and Particles <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Cc:</b> pete@leathergoth.com; 'Nick Bailey' <nick@bailey-family.org.uk>; 'Ariane Mandray' <ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr>; 'Martin van der'' <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com>; 'David Williamson' <david.williamson@ed.ac.uk><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Nature of charge<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'>John W. and All, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'>As background, I placed a post about the nature of charge on 11/28. John W. has posted several critical comments. This is the first of two answers that I will give addressing his points. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'> I started by stating that I was “</span><span style='color:#1F4E79'>probably the only one in the group to publish a </span><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F4E79'>quantifiable</span></i><span style='color:#1F4E79'> description the nature of charge and electric fields.</span><span style='color:#444444'>”</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'> He correctly pointed out that he and Martin published a paper in 1997 that postulated that a charged particle was a double loop photon and calculated a net electric field from this geometric configuration. My analysis starts with the properties of spacetime and a proposed particle model made from quantifiable quantum mechanical distortion of spacetime. My analysis calculates the forces that would be exerted between two of these spacetime based particles and concluded that there should be a force associated with linear wave properties (electrostatic force) and a much smaller force (gravitational force) based on the nonlinear wave properties. The larger linear related force turns out to be exactly equal to the force that would be exerted between two Planck charges. Planck charge is about 11.7 times larger than elementary charge <i>e</i>. Planck charge is derived from ε<sub>o</sub> and is actually more fundamental than charge <i>e</i> because Planck charge has a coupling constant to photons equal to 1 while charge <i>e</i> has a coupling constant equal to the fine structure constant (about <sup>1</sup>/<sub>137</sub>). In other words, charge <i>e</i> can be thought of as Planck charge reduced by a coupling constant of α<sup>½</sup>. My approach also gives a quantifiable model of electrostatic force, electric field and magnetic field.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'>John W, I have decided to only answer what I consider to be your two most important objections which are: 1) “</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#3366FF'>The mass-energy density in space is pretty close to zero – not at a level where the electron volume would contain more mass-energy than the entire universe</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'>.” Your second important point will be paraphrase as: 2) All my equations are trivial. They derive nothing because everything was manually installed at the beginning. Your actual words are: “</span><span style='color:#3366FF'>Yes but the model does not get any of these out – it just puts them in.</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'>”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>This post will address the second </span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'>of these important points in this email. I will address the first of these objections in my next email. The second of these objections lacks specific examples so I am forced to enumerate several of my most important equations and analyze whether they are important new insights and whether they are a trivial restatement of the starting assumption. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'>In physics, all mathematical analysis of starting assumptions just extracts non-obvious information from the starting assumptions. Therefore, if you are saying that my conclusions are derived from the starting assumptions, this is correct. The question comes down to whether the conclusions are trivial or profound new insights. My starting assumption is: </span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#C00000'>The universe is only spacetime</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'>. This is clearly stated numerous times in my book. I explain that building a model of the universe out of just the properties of 4 dimensional spacetime was extremely restrictive. I do not get the luxury to assume the existence of fields, particles and forces other than what I can logically derive from the properties of 4 dimensional spacetime. I very much reject the idea that I just install desired answers. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'>In the attached PDF document I will enumerate a few of the most important equations that I have generated. It is necessary to use a PDF so that all computers can read the equations. I challenge you to show how the equations in the attached PDF support the statement “</span><span style='color:#3366FF'>the model does not get any of these out – it just puts them in.</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'>” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'>Please now read the attached PDF.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#444444'>John M. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#20188C'><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'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> John Williamson [<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 28, 2015 6:51 PM<br><b>To:</b> John Macken <<a href="mailto:john@macken.com">john@macken.com</a>>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; 'Nick Bailey' <<a href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>; 'Ariane Mandray' <<a href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr">ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>>; 'Mark, Martin van der' <<a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>>; 'David Williamson' <<a href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [General] Nature of charge<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Dear John,<br><br>Sorry my friend but I need to comment here so that others just joining the group do not waste too much time wading through too much stuff. There is much that is good in your work – but you must not make false claims for it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> John Macken [john@macken.com]<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 28, 2015 7:45 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'; John Williamson<br><b>Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com"><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>pete@leathergoth.com</span></a><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>; 'Nick Bailey'; 'Ariane Mandray'; 'Mark, Martin van der'; 'David Williamson'<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [General] Nature of charge</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'>Hello All,</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'>Since I am the probably the only one in the group to publish a </span><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#444444'>quantifiable</span></i><span style='color:#444444'> description the nature of charge and electric fields, I decided that I would rejoin the discussion after a long absence. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#3366FF'>Firstly, you keep saying this but it is just not so, and it pisses me off. Even Martin and my paper in 1997 derived the charge – and got it far closer than you do. Please stop telling other people what they do not do and just say what you do do.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#3366FF'>Secondly, your “calculation of the charge” is anyway more than a couple of orders of magnitude out. You get a coupling constant of about 1. This is just wrong. If you attempted any proper perturbation calculations with this (which I have not seen despite having actually read the 400 pages) you would simply run into the same kind of problems that one gets in QCD (with a similar coupling constant) where the whole thing becomes non-perturbative. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'>The next paragraph will be about charge, but this paragraph will make a brief introduction. I will begin by analyzing the use of the word “field” in an explanation of charge. The standard model has 17 named “fields” which overlap and fill all of space. All fundamental particles are described as “excitations” of their respective fields. I believe that all the 17 fields of the standard model are just different resonances or distortions of the single truly universal field which I am calling the “spacetime field”. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#3366FF'>Great: but again you say this but do not actually derive any single one of them you do not put in to begin with.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'>In my model of the universe, zero point energy is described as quantum mechanical waves in spacetime primarily at Planck frequency. These waves displace space by ± Planck length (L<sub>p</sub>) such that the distance between points can vary by ± L<sub>p</sub>. Also the waves modulate the rate of time such that perfect clocks can differ by ± Planck time (± T<sub>p</sub>). This means that spacetime has a type of energy density that produces numerous effects which we interpret as merely being mysterious properties of spacetime. For example, we accept that the speed of light is a universal speed limit. However, if space is an empty void, why should uncharged particles such as neutrinos have a speed limit? You can quote special relativity and say that a particle’s mass/energy approaches infinity as the speed approaches the speed of light. However, why does this happen? In my book I show that this is ultimately is the result of particles being quantized waves propagating in the medium of the spacetime field which is a sea of Planck length/time waves in spacetime. All other constants of nature (<i>G</i>, </span><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:#444444'>ħ</span><span style='color:#444444'> and ε<sub>o</sub>) are also the result of the spacetime being a sea of Planck length/time waves in spacetime. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#3366FF'>Yes but the model does not get any of these out – it just puts them in.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'>We know that matter curves spacetime, but exactly how matter curves spacetime is a mystery unless the wave structure of spacetime is acknowledged. I derive the curvature of spacetime produced by a spacetime based particle existing in the spacetime field. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'>Now I will turn to charge and electric fields. In the attached paper <i>Spacetime Based Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity</i>, I address charge and electric fields in section 5 which starts on page 13. I propose that an electric field is a quantifiable asymmetric distortion of the spacetime field. The proposed conversion of the unit of charge (Coulomb) to an asymmetric distortion of the spacetime field (sea of Planck length/time waves). All fields have a physical explanation. In equation 26 of the “Foundation” paper I propose a “charge conversion constant”</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'> η = (G</span><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;color:#444444'>/</span><span style='color:#444444'>4πε<sub>o</sub>c<sup>4</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup></span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#3366FF'> John, in your model you calculate a lot of constants – stick in a lot of relations, but you do not have any base differential equations –linear, quadratic, non-linear or otherwise, and there is no perturbation theory, nothing much beyond proposals such as the one above – which is just a factor to convert what you get from one dimensional relation to another. If I am wrong simply refer me to your work – where the new base equations of motion are, the proposed Lagrangian or Hamiltonian - the perturbation theory or whatever. Without these one is simply looking at simple relationships between things – most of which already exist. For example, you put in tables showing the “amazing” relationship between, mass, energy, momentum, Compton wavelength and so forth. These are, indeed amazing but these things are anyway there as the correspondences come from – the fact that all of them contain “the mass”. Amazing but mundane.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#3366FF'>One can anyway MAKE UP forces with the same (inverse square) relation and find similar relations between any pair of them, the only difference would be that one attributed the base to a scalar (gravitation) or multi-vector (EM) or other (current, volume or string) basis – giving a different dimensional basis for the constants. All one is doing is replacing one fundamental constant with another. This is quite fun, and may lead to some insight, but does not lead to any real progress unless it reduces the number of parameters. The fact remains that they are different – related to each other indeed, in some ways, but so what? </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'>This constant has units of meters/Coulomb. It converts the unit of charge (Coulomb) to an asymmetrical distortion of the spacetime field with units of length. I give some examples of the use of this constant in the foundation paper. In the past I have challenged members of this group to find a single example where the use of η gives an unreasonable physical interpretation or a wrong mathematical answer. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#3366FF'>Of course this works at some level – it is dimensionally correct. This is nothing beyond the fact that both EM and gravitation are similar inverse square laws. One could choose any other made up force field with the same properties and find a conversion to that as well. So what? At the end of the day all you can calculate with the “new” factor is exactly what one would have got with the “old” factor. To be precise we are not talking about anything advanced such as explaining the anomalous magnetic moment here, or even calculating the structure in atomic spectra, we are only talking about calculating such things as the force between two (point) charges. This is nineteenth century stuff!</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'>The “Foundation” paper was published in April of this year and it has received a lot of attention. It has been downloaded over 350 times from either the ResearchGate website</span><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:#444444'>or from my personal website:</span><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Macken">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Macken</a><span style='color:#444444'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><a href="http://onlyspacetime.com/">http://onlyspacetime.com/</a><span style='color:#444444'> . </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'>The second attached paper titled: <i>Energetic Spacetime: the New Aether </i>has been similarly well received. I have not given the full description of how charge distorts spacetime in this brief post because that is covered in the two attached papers and in my book (chapters 9 to 11). The “Aether” paper quantifies the energy density of the spacetime field and shows how it has the properties of a relativistic aether. Both electric fields and photons require the existence of the spacetime field. The prediction is that the spacetime field has a quantifiable limit. This implies that there should be a limit to the maximum intensity which the spacetime field (the new aether) can transmit. The Foundation paper shows that this prediction is correct since this maximum intensity limit corresponds to the condition which makes a black hole without any consideration of gravity. Similarly, the model predicts that a vacuum capacitor should have a theoretical maximum voltage where the distortion of the finite properties of the spacetime field reaches its limit. The Foundation paper describes this in more detail and proves that the limit also exists.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#3366FF'>This is where you DO put new things in. They are flat-out contradicted by experiment. Experimentally, the mass-energy density in space is pretty close to zero – not at a level where the electron volume would contain more mass-energy than the entire universe, as you claim. You may think this is an o.k. starting point. I do not. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#3366FF'>As argued by myself and others in past posts the resulting “prediction” of a limit is anyway pretty safe from experimental testing as one would need to annihilate enough energy just to power it to kill any local experimenters stone dead. Also you will find that, for a capacitor even in a vacuum, sparks will jump at far lower than your “</span><span style='color:#444444'>maximum intensity limit</span><span style='color:#3366FF'>” as particle creation (let alone mere electron jumping) will kick in many orders of magnitude before. It has become fashionable long ago for people to propose untestable experiments to “prove” a theory. My own view is that this weakens rather than supports such stuff and diverts intellectual capacity into investigations which are, ultimately, a complete waste of time.</span><a name="_GoBack"></a><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#3366FF'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#444444'>John M.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='color:black'>John W.</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#20188C'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#20188C'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#20188C'> </span><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;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 28, 2015 9:25 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <</span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>>; John Williamson <</span><a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>><br><b>Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com"><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>pete@leathergoth.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>; Nick Bailey <</span><a href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk"><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>nick@bailey-family.org.uk</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>>; Ariane Mandray <</span><a href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>>; Mark, Martin van der <</span><a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>>; David Williamson <</span><a href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk"><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Nature of charge</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><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3'>Hello Everybody: To me “charge” is an emergent property of the self-loped in-phase localized EM wave-like motion of the CTF (Complex Tension Field). This localized motion give rise to the “particle-like” (wevicle) properties. Charge is quantized because its emergence (existence) is out of a quantized motion (self-looped in-phase). Otherwise, two charge-less gamma-rays interacting with some nucleus, could not have generated electron and positron pair with “quantized” charges; and vice versa.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3'>Chandra.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><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 [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 28, 2015 10:15 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; John Williamson<br><b>Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>pete@leathergoth.com</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>; Nick Bailey; Ariane Mandray; Mark, Martin van der; David Williamson<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Nature of charge</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='color:black'>Hello John,<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='color:black'> Speaking of “turtles all the way down”, that’s NOT how I understand electric charge and I have also never said or implied this. You wrote “ </span><span style='color:#3366FF'>This is what I mean by your own “logic” stopping you. You are thinking that the only way for something to have charge is for it to composed of charged stuff. This is you stopping yourself thinking about it by convincing yourself – a priori – that it cannot be otherwise – by saying to yourself. “How could this be otherwise if a circulating charged photon is to correctly model an electron?” This is what I mean by not using imagination. It is a chosen self-shutdown to free thinking!</span><span style='color:black'> “ So John you are quite wrong as well as quite presumptuous to claim that this is how I think about electric charge. I think that it is equally wrong logically to think that matter is composed of matter-stuff particles “all the way down” which is what materialistic thinking in physics usually implies metaphysically (I’m not suggesting that you think this way.) <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> Anyway, I DO think that since electric charge is experimentally quantized — as is also indicated by alpha = e^2/(hbar c) (in CGS units) giving e = sqrt( alpha hbar c) — that electric charge is likely to be created by the geometry of the circulation of energy — the circulating photon in the case of the electron — in charged particles. This is also the easiest way to explain positive and negative electric charge as being created by mirror images of helically circulating energy patterns within an electron and positron. I think that you and Martin are therefore correct that the double-loop Compton wavelength photon circling in a resting electron in your and Martin’s 1997 article (or with the double-loop-per-wavelength charged photon’s helical trajectory in my relativistic moving electron model) is part of what creates the electron’s charge. A closed single-looping 1 Compton wavelength photon would be uncharged. A neutrino, composed of a different circulating energy pattern, is uncharged. Dark matter particles (if they exist) could be composed of still another shape of uncharged energy circulation, as I propose in my "cosmic quantum" paper.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> I also don’t think that the electric field and magnetic field of a moving electric charge is more fundamental or primary than the electric charge, though electric charge may be defined mathematically (in Gauss’ law) as the divergence of an electric field, or in some other mathematical way as in QED. Math doesn’t imply causality. First of all this approach leaves the origin and nature of the field unexplained. I think (as is implied in my circulating charged photon model of the relativistic electron generating the electron’s “matter-wave”, combined with my energy quantum approach as expressed in other articles, that a circulating energy quantum’s particle-like aspect generates the energy quantum's field-like (or wave-like) aspect, which predicts statistically where the energy quantum's particle-like aspect will be detected in experiments. This quantum particle-field-particle unitary approach would be the case for uncharged particles (like regular uncharged photons) as well as for electrons (charged photons) and other quantum particles. In short: quantum particle predicts quantum field which predicts quantum particle. Neither the particle nor the field aspect of the energy quantum is primary. Both are aspects of the "energy quantum" (or just the “quantum”) that predicts both wave and particle aspects of the quantum world.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>On Nov 26, 2015, at 12:22 AM, John Williamson <</span><a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a><span style='color:black'>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>Hi Richard,</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:#3366FF'>blue</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><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 class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [</span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Thursday, November 26, 2015 2:56 AM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Cc:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>pete@leathergoth.com</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>; Nick Bailey; Ariane Mandray; Mark, Martin van der; David Williamson<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Nature of charge</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hello John,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> Thank you for your extended comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> First, I did not at all say that Einstein did not use insight, intuition and imagination. Obviously he did to a huge extent. “ </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:red'>You need to do what you were accusing Einstein of not doing! Intuition, insight and imagination!</span><span style='color:black'> “. I said that he could have probably increased his intuition (why does this idea offend some people?—Einstein was human too) through a systematic practice. Yogis call this practical approach intuitional science (though it might be more accurately called intuitional engineering since it refers to a practical, applied, systematic methodology). It doesn’t take the place of logic and reason. A yogi once said “Even if a small child says something logical it should be accepted. And even if the lotus-born Brahma’ (the mythological creator of the universe) says something illogical, it should be rejected like a straw.”<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><br><br></span><span style='color:blue'>Not necessarily – logic can get in the way. It was not intuition which stopped Einstein in making progress in trying to develop an electromagnetic electron, but (false) logic. He managed to convince himself, using logic, that a certain path was not possible when ,in fact, it was. Also it is logic which is stopping you understanding what charge is – not insight!</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>To give examples example "big is small" sounds logically inconsistent - yet in a quantum particle big size means necessarily small energy and vice-versa. Also what about "light is heavy"? Logic is after the fact of the intuition .. but it can lead you far astray with statements that sound sensible – but are already so far from the truth that one is already lost.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> Anyway, it could take me years (if ever) to develop enough intuition, insight and imagination to understand your recent electron model and its new high-dimensional algebra which is currently Greek to me. But I am eagerly waiting to hear of an endorsement of your new electron model from one or more highly-qualified independent physicists who DO understand all the math with all its subtleties.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><br><br></span><span style='color:blue'>You and me both! This stuff is hard for everyone though. It takes seasoned professors back to the days where they first struggled with the concept of complex numbers. It is hard – but not totally incomprehensible.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> It the meantime, I hope you won’t continue to misunderstand my relatively simple electron model. You wrote: “ </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:red'>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! </span><span style='color:black'> “. But the circulating charged photon that I have proposed to model the electron is NOT massless. In my sentence just before your comment, I wrote : "</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black'>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><span style='color:black'> “ .<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><br><br></span><span style='color:blue'>If something is spin half it is, logically, not a photon. Photons are spin one.<br>If something has rest-mass it is, logically, not a photon. Photons are rest-massless.<br>If something is charged it is, logically, not a photon. Photons have no charge.<br></span><span style='color:black'><br></span><span style='color:blue'>So this is exactly what I am objecting to. A thing with the properties of an electron is an electron and not a photon.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='color:black'> <br><br> So I am NOT AT ALL proposing that the charged spin 1/2 photon is massless. Its rest mass IS the electron’s rest mass, as its charge and spin ARE the electron’s charge and spin. How could this be otherwise if a circulating charged photon is to correctly model an electron? That would not be logical.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#3366FF'>This is what I mean by your own<span class=apple-converted-space> </span> “logic” stopping you. You are thinking that the only way for something to have charge is for it to composed of charged stuff. This is you stopping yourself thinking about it by convincing yourself – a priori – that it cannot be otherwise – by saying to yourself. “How could this be otherwise if a circulating charged photon is to correctly model an electron?” This is what I mean by not using imagination. It is a chosen self-shutdown to free thinking!</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#3366FF'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#3366FF'>It is simply not so that the only way is to make the thing “charged” is by having charged constituents.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span> Not so – otherwise one could isolate the charged stuff. Charged photon or charge-vot or whatever. No such thing! Not so, or pure (uncharged) energy could never produce charged particles.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#3366FF'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#3366FF'> Experimentally, one sees charge associated only with particles. Further, the stable charged particles are fermions. Further, charge is quantised. This is what one needs explain. Charge in terms of basics, not charge in terms of sub-charges. One needs to think what charge is, not explain charge, circularly, in terms of charge.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#3366FF'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#3366FF'>So what is charge? <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Charge is defined in 2 ways in modern physics. Either as a <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>non-zero field divergence (radial electric field in Maxwell) – or as an energy exchange (QED). The new theory explains both – without putting any charge in. The radial field comes from double looping the internal field components, the energy exchange from an understanding of the process of p-vot exchange. The quantisation comes from a proper understanding of relativity. All the experimental properties of charge to an external observer without putting any charge in.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Your new electron model also has associated electric charge -e, spin 1/2 and the electron's rest mass that it gets from its p-vot and its various other vots, if I may speak very simplistically and I’m sure imprecisely. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#3366FF'>You are right that this is too simple. This is not merely imprecise, but just wrong. No, the theory does not “get” charge and spin from more of the same. These things are first explained, then calculated, from first principles in the new theory and its resulting models.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#3366FF'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#3366FF'>Vot is not just quantities of charge, spin and so on. The vot is just root-energy. It does not gain charge by having sub-charges, charge-vot or whatever. Charge manifests by a force free motion of rest-mass and field – as described by the new field equations. It is the result of a non-trivial re-circulating topological flow of field momentum. Don’t worry you will get there! It is hard though, and will take time.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#3366FF'>Regards, John.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>On Nov 23, 2015, at 10:15 PM, John Williamson <</span><a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a><span style='color:black'>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>Hello Chip and Richard,<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>I had been meaning to add to this post for some time, but did not find a free moment till now.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>Feel like going in red this morning ….<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> of comments from what a model…</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>Hi Richard</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red'>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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red'>Saying the electron must “be a sphere” anyway begs the question – what <span class=apple-converted-space> </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 class=apple-converted-space> </span>Something more complicated than any of these?</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red'>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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>Chip</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:46 AM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <</span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:purple'>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>><br><b>Cc:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nick Bailey <</span><a href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:purple'>nick@bailey-family.org.uk</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>>; David Williamson <</span><a href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:purple'>david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>>;<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:purple'>pete@leathergoth.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>; Mark, Martin van der <</span><a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:purple'>martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>><br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>Hello John D and Albrecht,</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> 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 class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red'>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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>(But what happened to their double-looping photon's electric field at and near the model’s two poles?) .<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red'>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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red'>The original <span class=apple-converted-space> </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 class=apple-converted-space> </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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red'>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 class=apple-converted-space> </span>already “4-dimensional” motion and lets it loop again “rotating” it in yet another plane in the even subset (of eight!) dimensions. <span class=apple-converted-space> </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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red'>This is only true if you take the electron to be constituted a massless photon (as you do). <span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Let me try, once again, to convince you.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red'>Look at Gauss’s law in the full set of equations in my paper. <span class=apple-converted-space> </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 class=apple-converted-space> </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 class=apple-converted-space> </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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red'>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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red'>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!</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red'>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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> 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><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> with best regards,</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> Richard</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red'>Regards, from John.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>_______________________________________________<br>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" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>_______________________________________________<br>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" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>