<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 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
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.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:#20188C;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">John M.: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">I am very happy that you are raising many fundamental issues behind my proposed concept of CTF (Complex Tension Field).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> I am not as good a theoretician as I am a good experimentalist. So, I welcome critical opinions from skilled theoreticians in this discussion forum.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> I am not wedded to my concept of CTF forever. Because, it has not been developed yet to accommodate localized self-looped oscillations to model existing particles. Second, like postulates
behind any theory; it is only a plausible postulate. However, the CTF postulate has helped me understand and explain a wide range of optical phenomena from classical, quantum optics and cosmological physics; which are presented in my book, “Causal Physics”.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> My philosophy is to keep on iterating and iterating all “working theories”, while trying to visualize the invisible interaction processes (Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology, or IPM-E).
And, in the process, keep on re-formulating all the foundational postulates behind all working theories, going back to all the way to Newton’s laws. We now know that “mass” is not the “substance”, but a transformable manifestation of some cosmic energy. It
is the inertia to induce spatial displacement to a particle, or an assembly of them, which we experience as “mass” and got stuck with that notion of “mass”, instead of updating our knowledge. I call the 100% of that cosmic energy source as contained in (held
by) the Complex Tension Field (CTF).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Now, coming back to your points regarding the “rate of change” and the “running time”. You have raised critically important issues in formulating any serious theory.
Remember that our very very ancient forefathers, 3.5 billion years back, including back to the viruses and bacteria, succeeded in helping us to be here today by consistently practicing “evidence based” food and knowledge gathering repertoire. [The viruses
are better entrepreneurs today than we humans are! They only need two weeks’ notice to tweak their molecular feeding “hands” to over-ride human produced anti-viral molecules!] Naturally, even the modern physicists have been advancing by following this most
successful “evidence based” approach. Apply desired sensorial action; gather feedback; repeat what works; that is the evolution, mind and body!<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Our “evidences” are observable (measurable)
<b><i>physical transformations</i></b> in the “material” universe that are getting manifest all around us all the time through mutual energy exchange process. All such physical transformations have their own characteristics finite time rate of changes, or an
interaction period. [There are no “collapse of wave function”!]. But, here is the clincher. “Rate of change”, whether it is the movement of a wave crest at a spatially fixed location of a tension field (hence wave velocity), or the radioactive decay rate of
some radioactive (unstable) nuclei; the “rate of change”, “delta-tee”, is fundamentally a different physical parameter compared to the running time “tee” , that we humans have smartly invented. We measure this “interaction period” (inverse of “delta-tee”)
by comparing with another reproducible period of some standard oscillator. This is how the “evidence based science” advances – quantitative comparison with a reproducible standard.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> But, when we apply this methodology of “evidence based science”, I do not find the existence of any standard device in nature that keeps the running time “tee” for quantitative comparison
(measurement). So, our clever forefathers have figured out that the inverse of the frequency of a natural oscillator can serve as a measuring standard for a time interval, “delta tee”. And by counting the frequency many times, we can also quantitatively measure
longer time intervals. This does give us the semblance of measuring a “running time”; somewhat. But, let us not forget that the real physical parameter is the physical
<b><i>frequency of an oscillator</i></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> My point is this. The concept of “running time” is a very smart and convenient concept invented by human ingenuity to construct theories. But, nature has not provided us with an “evidence
based” (naturally existing) directly measurable standard comparator for the “running time”; like we have for the “time interval” as the inversion of a standard oscillator frequency. Accordingly, I have strong aversion to accepting that nature physically functions
as a four dimensional system, notwithstanding Einstein and Minkowski. My strong view is that we should not assign such physical properties on to nature that nature herself is not displaying as an obvious measurable property.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">As Einstein said, “a theory determines what we can measure”. Thus, “evidence based science” with theoretical parameters non-existent in nature does not reflect reality of nature. We can manipulate
the frequencies of various oscillators by altering their physical environment. I have not been able to figure out what natural object I can put in my laboratory control and manipulate its physical properties using some available physical forces to alter the
value of the intrinsic <b><i>running time </i></b>of my laboratory. [I do interact with physicists who deeply believe in the possibilities of time travel in future by manipulating Space-Time 4D! Of course, I am not knowledgeable enough to declare that would
be impossible!]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Now, your last point “….</span><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">incorporate time modulation into your CTF model. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">”
The tension fields are normally steady and quiescent to allow for the generation and propagation of fixed velocity waves. Mechanical tension of Guitar strings, water surface tension of a quiet pond, pressure tension field of a quiet air --- all these tension
fields do remain quiet until perturbed. But, once we introduce a perturbation, a time-rate of change in the local values of the tension-restoration comes into play. A low energy perturbation gives rise to perpetually propagating linear waves. If the excitation
is very energetic, it can possibly develop (in a fluid tension field) some vortex-like self-looped oscillations. The modeling is dependent upon the mathematical skill of the theoretician!
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">One more issue with the “evidence based science”. It is not the final arbitrator as to whether a theory has extracted the final reality out of nature or not. A working mathematical theory does
not at all guarantee that we have modeled nature perfectly. That is the reason why we all agree that all working theories are “work in progress”; none are final; whether they were constructed by Newton or Einstein! The reason is not all that complicated.
First, Einstein’s point, “a theory determines what we can measure”. We have figured out how to measure “running time” round-about way by inverting the “frequency” parameter and then counting larger and larger number of frequency of the standard oscillator.
Obviously, the “evidence” here is not directly connected with any real physical parameters of nature.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> Another permanent glitch in the “evidence’ gathering system -- our instruments. No measurement can give us complete information about any interactant under considerations. The reasons are
two-fold. First, humans have not succeeded in inventing any instrument that has 100% fidelity in converting interactants-generated data by the instrument. Second, we do not have complete knowledge of any reference interactants that can help us figure out the
complete information about another partially known interactant. Given the way we understand nature so far, this is a permanent information gap humans have to continue to suffer from. In fact, this is the reason why we revere super intelligent scientists. Their
genius minds hypothesize (cook up) new information that matches the “evidence” (data).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">So far, such cooked up postulates have kept us moving forward. But, if we do not try to anchor ourselves on how to get deeper into natures reality, pure mathematical theories my divert us into
believing in a “cooked up” nature, rather than evolving into the real nature for a long time to come! This is the reason, why I presented, “The urgency of evolution process congruent thinking in physics”, at our last SPIE conference.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><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"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><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"">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Macken<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'; 'Hodge John'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Non-Interaction of Waves - Time Modulation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">Chandra,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">I agree with you regarding the non-interaction of waves. In fact, you have changed my perception on this point. However, the reason for writing this is that every time I read
about your CTF, I am reminded that it is close to being correct but it is missing a key ingredient. Your CTF does not incorporate time. I claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve a complete model of the universe using a universal field that does not incorporate
the modulation of the time dimension. Gravity is a dominant component of the universe and it is fundamentally a rate of time gradient. I have shown in my book (pages 2-5 to 2-7) that there is an exact relationship between the rate of time gradient and the
gravitational acceleration produced by a mass. An acceleration of 1 m/s<sup>2</sup> corresponds to a rate of time gradient of ∿ 1.11265 x 10<sup>-17</sup> seconds per second per meter. The unit of meter and second are both proper units measured locally in
the gravitational field. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">A model of a fundamental particle such as an electron must explain the following: 1) the correct energy 2) the correct spin 3) the appearance of a point particle in a collision
experiment 4) the correct electric field (the fine structure constant can be manually inserted) 5) the correct curvature of spacetime in the surrounding volume 6) the correct gravitational force between two of the same particles. Points # 5 and 6 will never
be explained if you do not incorporate the modulation of the rate of time into your CTF.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">My “spacetime field” (my name for the CTF) modulates both proper volume and the rate of time. The spatial modulation results in the distance between points being modulated
by ± Planck length (<i>L<sub>p</sub></i>). In flat spacetime, the rate of time is modulated such that perfect clocks can differ by ± Planck time (<i>T<sub>p</sub></i>). References 3 to 7 in my “Foundation” paper show that it is impossible to make a distance
measurement more accurate than Planck length. References 4 and 5 show that it is impossible to make a time measurement more accurate than Planck time. I claim that the reason for these two limits is that the spacetime field (the CTF) is modulating both the
distance between points and the rate of time by these ±<i>L<sub>p</sub></i> and ±<i>T<sub>p</sub></i>. This might seem unrelated to gravity, but the modulation of time is a key component in the development of gravity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">All of this might seem like just another pet theory, but there is a difference. I actually develop the correct curvature of spacetime for a fundamental particle. Most important,
I also develop the Newtonian gravitational equation from first principles utilizing the impedance of spacetime (c<sup>3</sup>/G) and the model of spacetime which has Planck length (<i>L<sub>p</sub></i>) and Planck time (<i>T<sub>p</sub></i>) modulations.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">The gold standard of a theory is whether it gives any correct new insights. This theory passes this test. When I developed the electric fields and gravitational fields from
the properties of spacetime, I also obtained new insights into the previously unknown relationship between these forces. The derivation generates Planck charge (<i>q<sub>p</sub></i>) rather than elementary charge
<i>e</i>. However, this is understandable because Planck charge is actually based on the permittivity of free space (ε<sub>o</sub>). It is the most fundamental unit of charge because it has a coupling constant of 1 to photons and is derived from the properties
of spacetime. The relationship to charge <i>e</i> is: <i> e</i> = α<sup>1/2</sup><i>q<sub>p</sub></i> ≈
<i>q<sub>p</sub></i>/11.7 where α is the fine structure constant. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two particles with Planck charge will be expressed with the symbol
<i>F<sub>E</sub></i> and the gravitational force between the particles will be designated
<i>F<sub>g</sub></i>. With two electrons (charge <i>e</i>) the ratio of these two forces is
<i>F<sub>g</sub></i>/<i>F<sub>e</sub></i><sub> </sub>≈ 2.4 x 10<sup>-43</sup>. However, if we assumed the electron’s mass but Planck charge, then the ratio is F<sub>g</sub>/F<sub>E</sub> ≈ 1.75 x 10<sup>-45</sup>.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">This enormous difference in force magnitudes makes gravitons or the geometry of space seem plausible because no simple connection between gravity and the electromagnetic force
seems possible. However, a fundamental connection has been predicted by the spacetime-based model . Furthermore, this connection implies that both of these forces scale with a particle’s reduced Compton wavelength
<i><s>λ</s></i><sub>c</sub> = ħ/<i>mc</i>. For example, an electron has <i><s>λ</s></i><sub>c</sub> ≈ 3.86 x 10<sup>‑13</sup> m. To see the connection, it is necessary to specify the separation distance
<i>r</i> not in meters but in the number <i>N</i> of reduced wavelengths <i>N</i> =
<i>r</i>/<i><s>λ</s></i><sub>c</sub> = <i>rmc</i>/<i>ħ.</i> Using this designation, the equation connecting
<i>N</i>, <i>F<sub>g</sub></i> and <i>F<sub>E</sub> </i>is: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">F<sub>g</sub></span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">/<i>F<sub>E</sub>N</i> =
<i>F<sub>E</sub>N</i>/<i>F<sub>p</sub>.</i> where <i>F<sub>p</sub></i> = Planck force = c<sup>4</sup>/<i>G</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">If the separation is equal to<i>
<s>λ</s><sub>c</sub></i>, then <i>N</i> = 1 and the equation is <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">F<sub>g</sub></span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">/<i>F<sub>E</sub></i> =
<i>F<sub>E</sub></i>/<i>F<sub>p</sub></i>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">Also at this fundamental separation distance (<i>r</i> =
<i><s>λ</s><sub>c</sub></i>), the square relationship between the forces becomes obvious.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">(<i>F<sub>g</sub></i>/<i>F<sub>p</sub></i>) = (<i>F<sub>E</sub></i>/<i>F<sub>p</sub></i>)<sup>2</sup>.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">There are actually many new relationships derived by this new approach. Here is another one which also incorporates a fundamental particle’s Schwarzschild radius
<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 2<i>Gm</i>/c<sup>2</sup> and Planck charge.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">(<i>F<sub>g</sub></i>/<i>F<sub>E</sub></i>) = ½ (<i><s>λ</s></i><sub>c</sub>/<i>r<sub>s</sub></i>) force ratio = ½ radius ratio<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">A particle’s Schwarzschild radius is fundamentally associated with the gravitational distortion of spacetime and a particles Compton radius is the particle’s radius, which
is more associated with the electrical properties. It is interesting to note that the factor of ½ is eliminated if you use the Schwarzschild radius of a maximally rotating body which is ½ the non-rotating radius.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">Returning back to your CTF, I believe that you are close to a dead end which will not be circumvented until you incorporate time modulation into your CTF model.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:#0000CC">John M.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;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;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:32 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;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">>;
Hodge John <</span><a href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">jchodge@frontier.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Non-Interaction of Waves<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Andrew: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">You can take my response as a “broken record” turned on again!
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">But, I feel I should spell it out again for the benefit of the broader audience of our participating community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">There are no physically stationary waves.</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> It is a contradiction by definition – waves must always propagate. The mathematical wave equation, scrutinized carefully
for its embedded “propagation<b> process</b>” (my philosophy of process mapping thinking), reveals this. That any linear combination of harmonic waves is also a solution of the same wave equation; validates my assertion, as long as the sum of the resultant
amplitudes remains within the linear restoration strength of the parent tension field. This latter part is not explicitly built into the Maxwell’s wave equation. The field of nonlinear optics handles that.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">There could be <b>physically apparent</b> stationary crests and troughs when two opposite going waves, with EXACTLY identical wave frequency, propagte through each other. The Poynting vectors for the two waves
must be PRECISELY parallel and opposite to be able to see such “stationary crests and troughs” of water waves. Unfortunately, EM waves are not directly visible to human eye-sensors.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">In the above demo, which my student has started putting together, if these two opposite going water waves, of exactly same frequency, are given a time-finite wave envelope by turning on and off the wave generators;
then one will see stationary crests and troughs for a brief moment as the two opposite going wave patterns match up center to center. After, that it will be quite apparent that the two opposite going waves are emerging out unperturbed by each other’s physical
propagation through each other (Non-Interaction of Waves, or NIW, in the linear propagation domain). Further, if the two frequencies are slightly different, then the crests and troughs within the superposed volume of the opposite going beams will never be
stationary; they will appear to move “slowly”. This is the classic “beat signal”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I have been showing for last several years a video simulation of two CW waves of same frequency with Poynting vectors at a small angle; which has been created by my student, Michael Ambroselli [defending his
thesis this April 11, 2016! Any job suggestion?]. In his simulation, one can see STATIONARY dark and bright bands bisecting the two Poynting vectors (crests and troughs within the volume of intersection of the two spatially (lateral) finite beams. Outside
the volume of superposition, the two CW waves emerge out and keeps on propagating unperturbed (NIW-property!). How come, we do not say that the two waves have become “somewhat” stationary within the volume of superposition where the troughs are completely
stationary and the stationary crests are oscillating? Further, (simulation done by my student), when the frequencies of the two crossing beams are slightly different, the crests and troughs will move laterally (an example how not to set up beat or heterodyne
observation system; a past NASA paper in our conference)!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Wave amplitudes do not interfere or interact with each other in the linear propagation regime. Waves do not exist on their own. They are just linear excited states of the cosmic Complex Tension Field; (particles
are localized self-looped excited states of the same CTF). Mathematical Superposition Principle (SP) is a superbly crafted and correct mathematical starting platform.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Let us recognize here the <b>
FUNDAMENTAL conundrum of Quantum Mechanics</b>; which was never explicitly spelled out by the founders of QM: The SP (or sum of “Psi”s) is not an OBSERVABLE or measurable phenomenon wherever the detector generates data only after undergoing some quantum transition
(the detector responds only to the “Psi*Psi”). In contrast, the Superposition Effect (SE) is an observable phenomenon, irrespective of whether the observing detector is classical or quantum mechanical. These points have been amply illustrated in chapter after
chapter in my book, “Causal Physics”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><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"">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Andrew Meulenberg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:42 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Hodge John; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Structure of electron<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dear Hodge & Dave,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">You have confirmed my fears. Hodge takes the opposite position from me and Dave, while providing good information and references (of which I'll use one or more in another paper), hedged. However, he says "a
photon can be emitted." So he agrees with me in that usage.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Since I am concerned about bound radiation and, thus, standing waves and interference, what words can I use to describe how that EM energy density changes during the transit thru an eccentric orbit? Fearn's
1st article gives some good words and usages. Not quite what I need; but, I won't ask for more information or belabor the point, since that is not what this thread is all about. However, I thank you both for the feedback.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">_________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Hodge John <<a href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" target="_blank">jchodge@frontier.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Andrew:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Very subtle.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">I define “radiate” as releasing or have removed a part of something. So photons radiate from hot material (classically).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">I define “emit” as causing a change in something. So a boat traveling on water emits waves but does not radiate waves. “Radiate” is a subset of “emit”.
The STOE model has a plenum that is infinitely divisible (water is not). We have no instrument that measures anything about the plenum directly. All measurements are of the effect the plenum has on hods (crudely -matter - descrete things subject to being counted).
There is at least 10^6 hods per photon. Scale is part of the question. Some use these terms in reverse order or, worse, interchangeably (because the physics is lost or confused and we have a flaw in logic called changing definition of terms during the argument
- very bad).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Much of the standard model terms derive form classical analogies such as rotation (revolution about a center), spin (on an axis). Digitations and quantization
have been evoked to describe the energies measured such as “space quantization”. I think there are much better analogies and models than should be used. My recent paper starts down this path for elementary particles. The start was really the photon and the
diffraction papers. The result of varying illumination across a slit predicted an experimental observation that no other model to date can explain. Another characteristic that had to be invoked was the idea the plenum had to have inertia energy and the hod
had gravitational energy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">I thought of 2 models of the electron in an atom, which I haven’t explored to yield experiment consistency. One is that electrons are held by photons
(millions of hods in a column). An analogy would be spokes holding a mass at a fixed distance from a hub. Moving from one energy level to another requires a change (add or subtract material for the spoke) in the length of photons (frequency, color, wavelength)
of established (discrete lengths). This is not a physical process of orbiting and no angular momentum is involved although the math of the angular momentum energy change may be used. There is no energy change without the spokes. Shooting spokes at the electron
will be absorbed only if the spoke is the correct length. Otherwise the matter just flies off. The physics of angular momentum is an incorrect language/math to describe the physics. Therefore, we can have electrons in an atom without absorbing or emitting
energy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">The analogy for the other thought is the “walking drop” experiment. Two drops have been observed to revolve around each other because each is in a minima
of the others wave in the medium and the summation of the waves has a slight slope toward the center of the drops. Here we get discreteness in a continuous medium because of the minima of the waves being a discrete distance apart (wavelength) - Like de Broglie
suggests. This form of discreteness in a continuous medium is why Fourier analysis works in quantum mechanics. Hods (the only measured things) seek the minima or the waves in the plenum. Note the walking drop medium is excited by external medium to be just
below the point where waves would form spontaneously. This is energy input. The waking drop alternately puts potential energy into and takes motion (kinetic energy) out. Potential energy - hod related such as gravitational energy. Kinetic energy - plenum energy
such as inertial energy. The plenum energy is not measured except through the plenum’s action on hods. If the input photons are not correct, the plenum response is not measured except through the increase of temperature (the energy bath like the oil bath has
an average energy reflected in the heat [temperature] energy of the universe. The movement of the electron around the nucleus may absorb and emit (plenum) equal energy without “friction” (dampening). (at this scale there is no “friction”).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">I was asking the “exhaustion” question to have other’s answers to help develop my model.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Hodge<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 11:15 AM, "</span><a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">"
<</span><a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">> wrote:</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">John<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Sorry, I forgot about the lod. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Not sure about the radiation vs emission issue. Radiation usually suggests radiation reaction and radiation resistance issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">What is really puzzling is how a photon can be emitted without a radiation reaction as if conservation of momentum may not matter at the quantum level. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Here are some recent papers that discuss radiation reaction that may be of interest. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4469" target="_blank" title="Abstract"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">arXiv:1212.4469</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> [</span></b><a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.4469" target="_blank" title="Download PDF"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">pdf</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">, </span></b><a href="http://arxiv.org/ps/1212.4469" target="_blank" title="Download PostScript"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">ps</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">, </span></b><a href="http://arxiv.org/format/1212.4469" target="_blank" title="Other formats"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">other</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">]</span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="margin-top:3.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;mso-line-height-alt:16.2pt;background:white">
<b><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Radiation Reaction Force on a Particle<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:14.05pt;background:white">
<a href="http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Fearn_H/0/1/0/all/0/1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">H. Fearn</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">, </span><a href="http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Bengtsson_J/0/1/0/all/0/1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">J.
Bengtsson</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:14.05pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Comments: 13 pages, 0 figures<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:14.05pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Subjects: <b>Classical Physics (physics.class-ph)</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:14.05pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.7051" target="_blank" title="Abstract"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">arXiv:1301.7051</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> [</span></b><a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.7051" target="_blank" title="Download PDF"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">pdf</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">, </span></b><a href="http://arxiv.org/ps/1301.7051" target="_blank" title="Download PostScript"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">ps</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">, </span></b><a href="http://arxiv.org/format/1301.7051" target="_blank" title="Other formats"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">other</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">]</span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="margin-top:3.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;mso-line-height-alt:16.2pt;background:white">
<b><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">On radiation reaction and the [x,p ] commutator for an accelerating charge<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:14.05pt;background:white">
<a href="http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Fearn_H/0/1/0/all/0/1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">H. Fearn</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:14.05pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Comments: 8 pages, 0 figures<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:14.05pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Subjects: <b>Quantum Physics (quant-ph)</b>; Mathematical Physics (math-ph)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">2. </span><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00970" target="_blank" title="Abstract"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";text-decoration:none">arXiv:1501.00970</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> [</span></b><a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.00970" target="_blank" title="Download PDF"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";text-decoration:none">pdf</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">, </span></b><a href="http://arxiv.org/ps/1501.00970" target="_blank" title="Download PostScript"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";text-decoration:none">ps</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">, </span></b><a href="http://arxiv.org/format/1501.00970" target="_blank" title="Other formats"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";text-decoration:none">other</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">]</span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="margin-top:3.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;mso-line-height-alt:16.2pt;background:white">
<b><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">A delayed choice quantum eraser explained by the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:14.05pt;background:white">
<a href="http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Fearn_H/0/1/0/all/0/1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";text-decoration:none">H. Fearn</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:14.05pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Comments: 24 pages 4 figures, fifth draft<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:14.05pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Subjects: <b>Quantum Physics (quant-ph)</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">3. </span><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5426" target="_blank" title="Abstract"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";text-decoration:none">arXiv:1412.5426</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> [</span></b><a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.5426" target="_blank" title="Download PDF"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";text-decoration:none">pdf</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">, </span></b><a href="http://arxiv.org/ps/1412.5426" target="_blank" title="Download PostScript"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";text-decoration:none">ps</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">, </span></b><a href="http://arxiv.org/format/1412.5426" target="_blank" title="Other formats"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";text-decoration:none">other</span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">]</span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="margin-top:3.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;mso-line-height-alt:16.2pt;background:white">
<b><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Mach's principle, Action at a Distance and Cosmology<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:14.05pt;background:white">
<a href="http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Fearn_H/0/1/0/all/0/1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";text-decoration:none">H. Fearn</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:14.05pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Comments: The work is related to advanced waves and Cramer's transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. The paper has been submitted to the Journal of Modern Physics (jmp)
a special issue on "Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:14.05pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Subjects: <b>General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:3.75pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">
<hr size="1" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><b><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> Hodge John <</span><a href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">jchodge@frontier.com</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">><br>
<b>To:</b> "</span><a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">" <</span><a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">>;
"</span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">" <</span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 28, 2016 8:43 PM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Structure of electron<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">David:</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">“made of” - your thinking in the standard model. Magnetism is the property of the smallest particle - the hod. As I mention in the
photon construction. In any model, there must be a start. As I mention in the 1<sup>st</sup> paragraph of the discussion - magnetism (2 poles N and S) rather than a positive of negative charge is a property of the smallest particle. The charge then must be
derived from the magnetic field rather than the magnetic field of rotation charges.
</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Others have suggested a circulating something. A circulating anything is inconsistent with the variable illumination of the diffraction
and interference experiment (hodge2015a and 2015c). That is the photon must generate a diffraction wave like a linear array of dipole antennas (the analogy). Circulating anything that then goes to make a photon assembly becomes incredibly complex and unlikely.
The photon must have variable energy to make the different frequencies. That is circulating quanta is inconsistent with the experiment.</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">But I see you suggest one model. So the challenge is to match the properties with the experimental results such as in hodge2015c. I
don’t see how to do it.</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Rotating anything must emit radiation. What keeps it from exhaustion?</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Hodge</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">On Monday, March 28, 2016 2:18 PM, "</span><a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">"
<</span><a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">> wrote:</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">John<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Interesting work by explaining that only elementary particle theory is needed and not spacetime theories.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">> The polarization of photons in a magnetic field suggests the photons are magnets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
And what is the magnet made of? Are we talking of an oscillating monopole states or some sub-elementary (sub-sub-atomic) particle such as an energy, quanta or quantized spacetime?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">If there is an quanta circulating within a photon, could it be that the quanta has both subliminal and superluminal velocities, and we can only see
the subliminal. With twisted light, the paper suggest a c - 0.1% variation and the mere possibility that c + 0.1% variation might be enough to block direct observation of FTL. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Just like the photonic electron models, could there be a quanta circulating within the photon in some topology such as a cylinder or washer configuration.
After all, the parametric equations for a photonic electron can produce both topologies of ring and spindle torus. If one tunes the </span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">variables in the parametric equation,
cylinder and washer topologies can be obtained. In either case, the quanta would travel forward on the inner surface and return on the outer surface.</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Obviously , the cylinder would support the magnet theory of the photon. However, so would a soliton wave with a washer topology. </span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">This leaves open the possibility that the sub-elementary particle may be a resonant circulating g magnetic monopole.</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">David</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:3.75pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;background:white">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">
<hr size="1" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><b><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> Hodge John <</span><a href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">jchodge@frontier.com</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">><br>
<b>To:</b> "</span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">"
<</span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 25, 2016 9:52 PM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] Structure of electron<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">This may be of interest.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><a href="https://www.academia.edu/23702413/Structure_and_spin_of_the_neutrino_electron_and_positron" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">https://www.academia.edu/23702413/Structure_and_spin_of_the_neutrino_electron_and_positron</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Structure and spin of the neutrino, electron, and positron<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">The Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) model of photons is extended to a model of the structure of neutrinos, electrons and positrons. The polarization
of photons in a magnetic field suggests the photons are magnets. This observation and the STOE model of the photon suggest the hods are magnetic. Using disc magnets as an analogy of hods suggests the structure of elementary particles. The relative abundance
of elementary particles and anti--particles is dependent on their relative probability of formation that depends on the difficulty of forming their structure. The structure of the neutrino explains why its velocity is the velocity of photons. The structure
of large neutrinos suggests how they can transform into electron neutrinos. The position of north seeking magnetic poles relative to the direction of movement is qualitatively consistent with the ``spin'' observation. The postulate of ``space quantization''
is unnecessary. The structure models are consistent with several observations of elementary particle behavior.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Hodge<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
</span><a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
<a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com">mules333@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>