<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" class="" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Dear Richard,<br>
<br>
Yes .. this is precisely the point that Dieks was making - see the paper Martin circulated - that the non-relativistic theory was quasi relativistic precisely because both the (correct) relations E=hv and lambda = h/p had been inserted.
<br>
<br>
If one lets loose an energy operator on it (d/dt)- one gets the correct energy in that frame, and if one lets loose a momentum operator (d/dx) one gets the "right" momentum - the non-relativistic e = 1.2 m v squared for the Schroedinger equation for example.
Problem here is the phase velocity looks silly - as you point out.<br>
<br>
This means the form works - and can indeed be made to work - for any given frame. This is what everyone does!
<br>
<br>
It can also be transformed - by hand - to another frame. This does not mean, however, that if one writes down the expansion using the Euler relation and then lets a Lorentz transformation loose on that, that all the components will transform relativistically
correctly, since the x's transform to the t's and vice-versa. One needs to use a different set of x's and t's as well as different k's and w's. It is non-relativistic in that all of the components, in and of themselves, do not transform correctly relativistically.
This is in contrast to my equation 21, where they all do. The difference is that, for me, only the relative scale of length and time varies (R) where space and time, for me, differ in the exponent by the right space-time difference (alpha 3 0), whereas in
the complex form both space and time enter in the exponent as a scalar and hence do not transform relative to one another to all orders in any expansion.<br>
<br>
Look - it is fine to use this. It is good enough for most purposes. It is just not good enough for me.<br>
<br>
Regards, John.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF867970"><font color="#000000" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> Richard Gauthier [richgauthier@gmail.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 01, 2015 6:47 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> John Williamson<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; pete@leathergoth.com; Nick Bailey; Ariane Mandray; Mark, Martin van der; David Williamson<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [SPAM?] Re: [General] Nature of charge<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div class="">Hello John,</div>
<div class=""> You wrote “ <span class="" style="color:rgb(0,0,255); font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:16px">
What I meant is that the equation e^i(kx-wt) is too simple, because it is not relativistic.</span> "</div>
<div class=""> It is my understanding (Al, are you listening?) that de Broglie’s matter-wave equation (the same longitudinal wave equation derived from my helically circulating charged photon model for a free electron) IS relativistic: de Broglie’s matter
wave equation is Ae^i(kx-wt) yes, but k is the wave number of the relativistic de Broglie wavelength Ldb = h/(gamma m v) , so k= 2 pi/ (Ldb) = 2pi/( h/gamma mv) = (gamma mv)/hbar , while w is the angular frequency corresponding to the electron’s total
relativistic energy E = hbar w = gamma mc^2 , or w = (gamma mc^2)/hbar. In this case the phase velocity Vphase = w/k =( (gamma mc^2)/hbar ) / ( (gamma mv)/hbar ) = c^2/v which is the phase velocity of de Broglie’s matter wave equation. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> I understand that Schrodinger started with this relativiistic matter-wave equation for a free electron from de Broglie and tried to find a relativistic wave equation for an electron in an electric potential V(r). He derived the relativistic
equation now called the Klein-Gordon equation (before Klein and Gordon derived it) but it did not give the correct energy levels for the electron because the Klein-Gordon equation only works for spin 1 particles, So Schrodinger never published this relativistic
work. He gave up this relativistic approach and then developed his successful non-relativistic Schrodinger equation which had correct energy level solutions for the spin 1/2 electron. But in the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation solution for a free electron
Ae^i(kx-wt) , the k and w relations for obtaining the phase velocity Vphase are hbar k = p so k = p/hbar , and E = hbar w = KE = p^2/2m so w = p^2/(2m hbar) . Here the phase velocity Vphase of the non-relativistic Schrodinger solution is Vphase
= w/k = (p^2/(2m hbar) ) / (p/hbar ) =p/2m = mv/2m = v/2 which doesn’t make sense for a phase velocity, but this incorrect phase velocity is overlooked when using the Schrodinger equation solution for a free electron, since the correct phase velocity is only
found for a relativistic solution.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> So your dismissal of my charged photon matter-wave result as too simple because it is not relativistic, does not I think not hold up.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 29, 2015, at 8:15 PM, John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" class="" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt">
Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
True it is just a hypothesis and you do state your hypotheses up front - unlike others - so lets just indeed forget about it.<br class="">
<br class="">
Comments below.<br class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1" class="">
<div id="divRpF102050" class="" style="direction:ltr"><font class="" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Richard Gauthier [<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>]<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Monday, November 30, 2015 2:19 AM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>John Williamson<br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" class="" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; Nick Bailey;
Ariane Mandray; Mark, Martin van der; David Williamson<br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Nature of charge<br class="">
</font><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""></div>
<div class="">
<div class="">Hello John,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Well, the charged photon is just a hypothesis so it’s not necessary to talk about it at all. I think we can agree though that the term “charged photon" is not an oxymoron since it could be an as yet unnoticed variety of photon that doesn’t
violate any known physical laws, but just has several different properties than an uncharged photon, such as a different spin, rest mass and charge. The only reason to talk about it is because, like your electron model, it might be a useful hypothesis for
understanding the electron and quantum mechanics on a deeper level. One reason not to just call a charged photon an electron is because charged photons, if they exist, could also compose muons and tau particles, and possibly other particles.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> You once said on this discussion list that your latest model of the electron, based on your latest photon model, doesn’t predict the free electron’s relativistic matter-wave equation that de Broglie found, e^i(kx-wt),<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">No - this is not quite what I meant (although it may be what I said!). What I meant is that the equation e^i(kx-wt) is too simple, because it is not relativistic. In fact it was de Broglie who pointed out that this was the case
for Dirac. Dirac's equation was relativistic, but his solutions were not. It is not then de Broglies relation - but de Brolglies exposure of the nature of the nature of the problem. The wave-function you mention is the embodiment of U(1). Not good enough!</font><br class="">
<br class="">
although you said that your model predicts the relativistic de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) and the electron’s phase velocity c^2/v where v is the electron’s velocity . What do you think is origin of the free electron’s quantum wave function if not from
your electron model itself?<br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">I think the electron-wave IS embodied by my model. Both the Compton and de Broglie part of it. It is the interference between th eforward Compton ans the reverse Compton in the direction of propagation tah generates the de Broglie
wave. Simple.</font><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""> <br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">John.</font><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:28 PM, John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" class="" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt">
Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
I know I'm just being the pedant here and wanting "photon" to mean what I want it to mean. It just seems confusing and un-necessary to me talk about the electron being "charged photon".<br class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1" class="">
<div id="divRpF210861" class="" style="direction:ltr"><font class="" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Richard Gauthier [<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>]<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Saturday, November 28, 2015 3:14 PM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; John Williamson<br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" class="" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; Nick Bailey; Ariane Mandray; Mark, Martin van der; David Williamson<br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Nature of charge<br class="">
</font><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""></div>
<div class="">
<div class="">Hello John,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class=""> 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 class="" style="color:rgb(51,102,255); font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:12pt">This is
what I mean by your own</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(51,102,255); font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:12pt"> </span><span class="" style="color:rgb(51,102,255); font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:12pt"> </span><span class="" style="color:rgb(51,102,255); font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:12pt">“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> “ 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.) </div>
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> 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.<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF"><br class="">
Thank you, and agreed to a large exte<font class="" color="0000FF">nt </font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>here. I think the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font class="" color="0000FF">twisting thing is is quantis<font class="" color="0000FF">ing
spin, the (double) looping thing generating an apparent charge. To<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font class="" color="0000FF">generate a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font class="" color="0000FF">V<font class="" color="0000FF">ALUE
for that quantised charge needs, I think, a consideration of the inter-action<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font class="" color="0000FF">(rat<font class="" color="0000FF">e) with the rest of the universe</font></font><br class="">
</font></font></font></font></font></font></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> 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.<br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">I think one does not need to start with "quantum" but that should emerge from the underlying (continuous) nature of reality.</font><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 26, 2015, at 12:22 AM, John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" class="" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt">
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times">Hi Richard,</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<a name="_GoBack" class=""><span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; color:rgb(51,102,255)">blue</span></a></div>
<span class=""></span>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria; text-align:center" align="center">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'">
<hr class="" align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Tahoma">From:</span></b><span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Tahoma"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="" target="_blank">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Richard Gauthier [<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>]<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday, November 26, 2015 2:56 AM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" class="" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; Nick Bailey; Ariane Mandray; Mark, Martin van der; David Williamson<br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Nature of charge</span><span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"></span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'">Hello John,</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> Thank you for your extended comments.</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> 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 class="" style="font-size:10pt; color:red">You need to do what
you were accusing Einstein of not doing! Intuition, insight and imagination!</span><span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> “. 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 class="">
<br class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; 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></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:blue"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; 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 class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"></span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> 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 class="">
<br class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; 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 class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"></span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> It the meantime, I hope you won’t continue to misunderstand my relatively simple electron model. You wrote: “ </span><span class="" style="font-size:10pt; 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 class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> “. 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 class="" style="font-size:10pt">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 class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> “ .<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:blue">If something is spin half it is, logically, not a photon. Photons are spin one.<br class="">
If something has rest-mass it is, logically, not a photon. Photons are rest-massless.<br class="">
If something is charged it is, logically, not a photon. Photons have no charge.<br class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"><br class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; 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 class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> <br class="">
<br class="">
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></span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:rgb(51,102,255)">This is what I mean by your own<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class=""> </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></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:rgb(51,102,255)"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:rgb(51,102,255)">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><span class=""> </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></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:rgb(51,102,255)"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:rgb(51,102,255)"><span class=""> </span>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></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:rgb(51,102,255)"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:rgb(51,102,255)">So what is charge?<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>Charge is defined in 2 ways in modern physics. Either as a<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'">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. </span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:rgb(51,102,255)">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></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:rgb(51,102,255)"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:rgb(51,102,255)">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></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> Richard</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:rgb(51,102,255)">Regards, John.</span></div>
<div class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:16px">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 23, 2015, at 10:15 PM, John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" class="" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'">Hello Chip and Richard,</span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria"><span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'">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:0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'">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 class="">
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'">Feel like going in red this morning ….</span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria"><span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Tahoma"><span class=""> </span>of comments from what a model…</span><span class="" style="font-family:'Times New Roman'"></span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times">Hi Richard</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times">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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; 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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; color:red">Saying the electron must “be a sphere” anyway begs the question – what<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>Something more complicated than any of these?</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; 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></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times">Chip</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri">From:</span></b><span class="" style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="" style="color:purple; text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On
Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Richard Gauthier<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:46 AM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="" style="color:purple; text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nick Bailey <<a href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk" class="" style="color:purple; text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>; David Williamson <<a href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk" class="" style="color:purple; text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>>;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" class="" style="color:purple; text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>;
Mark, Martin van der <<a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" class="" style="color:purple; text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span><span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"></span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times">Hello John D and Albrecht,</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"> 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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; 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></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times">(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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; 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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; color:red">The original<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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><span class=""> </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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; 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=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times">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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; color:red">This is only true if you take the electron to be constituted a massless photon (as you do).<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>Let me try, once again, to convince
you.</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; color:red">Look at Gauss’s law in the full set of equations in my paper.<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; 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></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times">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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; 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!<a name="_GoBack" class=""></a></span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; 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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"> 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></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"> </span></p>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"> with best regards,</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times"> Richard</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:Cambria">
<span class="" style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times; color:red">Regards, from John.</span></div>
</div>
<span class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; float:none; display:inline!important">_______________________________________________</span><br class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; float:none; display:inline!important">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" class="" style="color:purple; text-decoration:underline; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; float:none; display:inline!important"><a
href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="" style="color:purple; text-decoration:underline; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; float:none; display:inline!important">"></span><br class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; float:none; display:inline!important">Click
here to unsubscribe</span><br class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; float:none; display:inline!important"></a></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; float:none; display:inline!important">_______________________________________________</span><br class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; float:none; display:inline!important">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" class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; float:none; display:inline!important"><a
href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; float:none; display:inline!important">"></span><br class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; float:none; display:inline!important">Click
here to unsubscribe</span><br class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span class="" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal; orphans:auto; text-align:start; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px; float:none; display:inline!important"></a></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>