<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)">
<base href="x-msg://805/"><!--[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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 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.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
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">Thanks, Chip, for bringing out Khrennikov’s paper.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">He briefly served as a co-chair of our conference series.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></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 [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 05, 2016 10:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Viv<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Regarding entanglement: The attached article is quite informative.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Vivian Robinson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:34 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Hi Chip and All,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Momentum requires two factors, mass and velocity. For anything to have momentum it must have mass.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">I am not aware of it being observed. I am only aware of the spin of a photon being changed as it passes through the appropriate filter, e.g. polaroid lens.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">I am suspicious of all studies that treat anything as a point (full stop excluded). In the physical world there is no such thing as a point particle. This can give mathematics extra "degrees of freedom". This
allows non physical effects to be derived mathematically, even though in this case it would be nice to agree with the findings. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Having said that, enough experiments have been conducted to suggest that something similar to entanglement is observed. As such it needs to be explained. My suggestion is that explanation. It doesn't require
"spooky action at a distance" to explain it. I am not aware of any observation that is not explained by it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">I am quite happy to ignore quantum physics because I believe there are other explanations. However that does not mean that I will ignore measured effects that are attributed to quantum mechanical effects.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Cheers<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">PS <span class="apple-tab-span">
</span>Are you, or anyone else, prepared to add to the brief list of photon properties given? After all that is what we want to establish.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 04/06/2016, at 9:00 PM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Vivian<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some questions embedded in the text below.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Getting back to a proposed photon structure. I am happy with the idea that photons are electric and magnetic field oscillations in the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of space. The fields are
perpendicular to each other. They are sinusoidal, at least at frequencies less than 10^18 Hz. They have velocity c and wavelength lambda, related through c = nu.lambda. They have an energy E = h.nu and mass h.nu/c^2.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="color:#002060">Is
it correct to state that these waves themselves have mass? Would it be more accurate to state that they have momentum?</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>They only have that mass when travelling at c. They have a finite length made up of a number
of oscillations of lesser amplitude. This is justified because they take longer to be emitted from an atom than the inverse of their frequency. Most photons are circularly polarised and have a spin of hbar. This corresponds to their oscillation making a 360˚
rotation every wavelength. Plane polarised photons have the electric and magnetic fields always in the same direction and hence have zero spin.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="color:#002060">Is it possible that it takes two opposite
spin photons to create plane polarization?<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span>Other spins may be possible. Entangled photons are identical and sufficiently close that they adopt each other's orientation. When later separated, the spin of one
will determine the spin of the other.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="color:#002060">Have you read work from Robert Close and others which explain Bell’s inequalities? It seems Bell’s math considered the particle to be a point instead
of a spinning extended object. Since rotations do not commute and Bell assumed point particles with commuting local variables it seems that entanglement may be an illusion?</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">General
[mailto:general-<a href="mailto:bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="color:purple">bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf
Of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Vivian Robinson<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, June 03, 2016 9:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="color:purple">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Richard,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Regarding your comments below. You consider my calculations to be in error. I do not. My philosophy on life includes, but is not limited to:- </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">1<span class="apple-tab-span"> </span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>If I am in error, I wish to be the first person to know that, not the last. That way I can correct it quickly.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">2<span class="apple-tab-span"> </span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Experiment is the only arbiter of theory. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">3<span class="apple-tab-span"> </span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>I do not believe it is necessary for me to justify my theory because I won't publish it unless I have experimental
evidence that my calculations match known properties. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">4<span class="apple-tab-span"> </span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Reduce the mathematics to its simplest form. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">For a theory to be worth anything, it should also make predictions that can be tested. You will see that my article made 16 matches with observation. You will note that when you pointed out the error of my
Bohr magneton derivation I accepted it. However I will still maintain that the value of the Bohr magneton is electric charge multiplied by its radius. You will also note that I have made 7 predictions of unknown or known and not recognised electron properties
under this rotating photon model. These should be used to verify or disprove the model. I am happy to consider evidence that suggests verification or otherwise. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">As far as my use of gamma is concerned, I did not apply it as you suggest. That requires an unknown property of space to force gamma on to everything that moves. In my situation I suggest that gamma is introduced
to individual moving particles, electron, proton, neutron, muon, etc, by their rotating photon structure and Pythagoras' theorem, as presented. I suggest you may have mis interpreted the change of radius. Experimentalists measure the electron as a point particle
when accelerated to high voltages, e.g. 10^17 to 10^18 eV. You will find they agree with the reduction of radius as calculated in my paper. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">I do not wish to change my approach to the derivation of the de Broglie wavelength. IMHO it is physically sound, mathematically correct and matches observation. You are perfectly entitled to disagree. There
are many pathways to calculating physical values. For one method to be preferred over another it must make predictions that other pathways don't make, which predictions are verified when tested experimentally. I will stick by my predictions. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">To All </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">The original objective of this group was to discuss the structure of photons and try to come to a better understanding of them. I now find it has changed to people trying to justify their model of matter.
Some are based upon toroidal (WvdM) or rotating (VR) photons, which have relevance. Both of those models suggest a reason for the electron to have charge. Richard, your model appears to be based upon rotating charged photons and assuming the special relativity
is a property space imposes upon the electron (correct me if I am wrong). Why are some photons charged and others not? What is the property of space that imposes gamma upon moving particles? Others are based on hypothesised rotars, hods or other undetected
particles. I wonder if this is the correct forum? </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Getting back to a proposed photon structure. I am happy with the idea that photons are electric and magnetic field oscillations in the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of space. The fields are
perpendicular to each other. They are sinusoidal, at least at frequencies less than 10^18 Hz. They have velocity c and wavelength lambda, related through c = nu.lambda. They have an energy E = h.nu and mass h.nu/c^2. They only have that mass when travelling
at c. They have a finite length made up of a number of oscillations of lesser amplitude. This is justified because they take longer to be emitted from an atom than the inverse of their frequency. Most photons are circularly polarised and have a spin of hbar.
This corresponds to their oscillation making a 360˚ rotation every wavelength. Plane polarised photons have the electric and magnetic fields always in the same direction and hence have zero spin. Other spins may be possible. Entangled photons are identical
and sufficiently close that they adopt each other's orientation. When later separated, the spin of one will determine the spin of the other.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">There is vastly more to the photon than the briefest introduction to an abstract given above. If people have other explanations supported by experimental evidence, or evidence that parts of the above are wrong,
I would be happy to receive them. Please, when forwarding ideas, supporting them with experimental observation would be a huge advantage. IMHO, we should stick to the structure of the photons so that, by the time the next SPIE conference is held, Chandra can
point to the success of this discussion group in contributing to a better understanding of them. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Vivian Robinson</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 04/06/2016, at 8:15 AM, Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Vivian,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Thanks for your recent comments, and for resending your electron model article, which gave me an opportunity to take a second look at it. It is definitely a pioneering article, particularly since you were unaware of John and Martin’s
1997 article at the time.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The last time I critiqued your article, I pointed out three significant errors, one of which (the error in calculating the electron’s magnetic moment) you acknowledged at the time. For the others, you said that experiment would be the
best judge.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> But let me repeat the two other significant errors that I spotted, which affect other relativistic derivations in your article.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The first error occurs when you derive the radius of the circular orbit of the double-looping photon of a moving electron, where the electron is moving in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the orbit. You called the time t as
the time for the photon to move in the purely circular orbit, so 2 pi Ro = ct . Then you use the same value t in calculating the triangular distance relationships for a moving electron, which are (2 pi Rv)^2 = (vt)^ + (ct)^2 , where Rv is the radius of the
particle when it it is moving at velocity v. In the first case, t is measured in the frame of the particle itself. In the second case, t is measured in the frame in which the particle is moving, as seen by a stationary observer. Your derivation is analogous
to the standard derivation of relativistic time dilation for a moving “light clock” in which the light pulse is traveling up and down vertically (perpendicular to the direction of the horizontal movement of the light clock) in the frame of the stationary light-clock,
but the reflecting light pulse follows a zig-zag trajectory for the horizontally-moving light clock (mounted on a moving train for example) as seen by a stationary observer. The point of the light-clock derivation is that since the speed of light c is accepted
as constant as measured in both reference frames, the value of time elapsed between “tics" of the stationary clock and between “tics" of the moving light clock is not the same. But you called both of these times t in your derivation. Based on this, you calculated
that the moving electron would have a transverse radius Rv = Ro/gamma . But by relativistic time dilation (which is what is actually derived in the light-clock thought experiment), the value of the second t in your derivation , as measured for the moving
light-clock, should have been t’ = gamma t , due to relativistic time dilation for a moving electron as seen by a stationary observer. If you put t’ = t/gamma into your equation instead of putting the same t for both times, you will find that you get Rv=
Ro instead of the value Rv=Ro/gamma that you found. In other words, the light clock (and your particle) does NOT contract in the direction perpendicular to the direction of motion of the particle. Special relativity predicts no relativistic length contraction
perpendicular to the direction of motion of an object.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> You will see in my attached SPIE article “Electrons are spin-1/2 charged photons generation the de Broglie wavelength” that to get the change in the radius of the trajectory of the moving double-looping photon, you need to take into
account that the moving electron is associated with a helically circulating photon whose frequency f is proportional to the total energy E=gamma mc^2 of the moving electron: hf = gamma mc^2 . The corresponding wavelength of this higher energy photon along
its trajectory is easily found to be lambda = h/(gamma mc) . When this wavelength and frequency for the higher energy helically-moving photon are taken into account, the radius of the trajectory of the moving photon is found to decrease as Ro/gamma^2 as the
speed of the electron increases. Now, the actual total radius of the helically circulating photon may decrease as Ro/gamma with increasing electron velocity, but this is a different story.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The second significant error I pointed out to you before is that, near the end of your article, when using the relativistic energy-momentum equation (bottom of page 13), you add energies using the Pythagorean triangle: resting energy
hFo + kinetic energy hFke = total electron energy hFv. But energies are scalar quantities and don’t add vectorially by the Pythagorean theorem. So the frequency Fke for your frequency corresponding to the kinetic energy of the moving electron has no physical
meaning, and so to derive the de Broglie wavelength lambdaKE from this FrequencyKE has no physical meaning either.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> A better approach, as I show in my article, is to interpret the electron's relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 as corresponding to the vector relationship of three MOMENTA: the transverse momentum of the circling
photon mc in a resting electron, plus the longitudinal momentum of the linearly moving electron p=gamma mv, to give the total momentum P of these two momentum components, where P= E/c and E is the total energy of the helically moving charged photon forming
the relativistically moving electron, which equals the total energy E of the moving relativistic electron. This momentum addition DOES corresponding to the Pythagorean theorem: P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2 and to the relativistic energy-momentum equation. The de Broglie
wavelength of the moving electron is derived from the wave vector K corresponding to the total momentum P of the helically-moving higher energy charged photon, since this wave vector K has a component k=K cos (theta)=K v/c along the longitudinal axis of the
helical trajectory of the circulating charged photon. It is this longitudinal component of the higher energy helically moving photon that generates the relativistic de Broglie wavelength.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> with best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><electrons are spin one half charged photons generating de Broglie wavelength SPIE copy.pdf><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Jun 1, 2016, at 5:00 PM, Vivian Robinson <<a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com"><span style="color:purple">viv@universephysics.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Hi Chip,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Regarding your comments, you will see from
the book I sent you and my earlier paper on the proposal of an electron being a photon of the appropriate energy making two revolutions within its wavelength, it is essentially the same model as the Williamson and van der Mark. I was unaware of their work
when I wrote my paper and reference and acknowledge it now. In that paper you will see a derivation for E = mc^2, in which energy is the photon travelling in a straight line and mass is the same photon making two revolutions within its wavelength. Experiment is
reality. So far I am unaware of any experiment that separate those three masses, inertial, gravitational and electromagnetic.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">That same paper shows that the moving particle
will subject the electron to the special relativity corrections of mass, length and time with velocity.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">You will also see that I suggested the reason
a photon could travel in a circle was because it continually emitted and absorbed "virtual" photons, giving it the property of electric charge. My use of "virtual" is different from that used in QED, where they use "virtual" to indicate photons that are exchanged
during electric interactions. For the rest of this presentation I will call them field photons because they are responsible for generating the electric field. I did not calculate a value for the unit electrical charge e because I required a</span><span style="font-size:18.0pt">n
unknown constant. In that case the constant may well stay as e. The rest mass of an electron, when it is not affected by an electric or magnetic field, includes the field photons being </span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">emitted and absorbed. When they are
influenced by an electric field they pick up or lose a photon, changing their mass and hence velocity.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">As Richard G pointed out, my calculation for
the magnetic field was in error. It is suggested that the magnetic field can be explained by a combination of the rotating charge and the residual magnetic field from the direction of the photon's rotation. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Since then, John and Martin have written
a paper in which they indicate there is a mathematical reason for the photon to rotate in a circle. I believe these effects are not mutually exclusive. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">As far as i am concerned, the rotating photon
structure of all matter is the reason for the special relativity corrections. As far as general relativity is concerned, space-time distortion is nothing more than the effect of gravity upon the mass of a photon m = hnu/c^2. Flat Minkowski space-time is when
a photon is unchanged as it moves through that space. Curved Minkowski space-time is when gravity changes the direction and/or frequency of a photon. I have written a little about that in:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013081410504275.pdf"><span style="color:purple">http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013081410504275.pdf</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">IMHO, photons are responsible for everything.
They are energy and mass, related through E = mc^2 and the rotating photon structure of matter. They generate the electric and magnetic fields and are responsible for the special and general relativity corrections. That is why it is so important to understand
the structure of the photon and what I believed was the purpose of this discussion group. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Cheers,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Vivian Robinson.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">PS<span class="apple-tab-span"> </span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>A copy of my electron paper, sent for the benefit of new participants is</span><span style="font-size:18.0pt"> in the
following email.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 02/06/2016, at 12:09 AM, "Chip Akins" <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple">chipakins@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear John Williamson and Martin van der Mark<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your 1997 paper on the electron may have had a much greater influence than you thought.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The aspect of this which I would like to address is the simple premise that matter is made from confined light-speed energy.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If this is true then there is only one form of “relativity” which can be supported.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The consequences of matter being comprised of confined light-speed energy lead to inescapable conclusions regarding “relativity”.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Are there comments from the group?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">General
[mailto:general-<a href="mailto:bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="color:purple">bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf
Of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Vladimir Tamari<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Sunday, May 29, 2016 9:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="color:purple">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] inertia</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Richard, </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">without going into the details of your model, you mentioned:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#AC193D;background:white">"It may be that vector momentum is just not conserved within fundamental particles even though it is conserved between two or more particles in their mutual
interactions"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#444444;background:white">In cellular-automata schemes, such as my<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf"><span style="color:purple">Beautiful
Universe</span></a>, a particle is made up of a pattern of spinning nodes in a matrix. The same type of spinning nodes also form the<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#444444">surrounding
magnetic, gravitational or electrostatic field etc. Any changes in the angular momentum or the axis of spin of the constituent nodes of a particle (or photon wave) is transmitted as a domino effect adjusting the angular momentum of surrounding nodes both
internally and externally. The domino effect is diffused unto infinity in inverse-square fashion. Nothing is hidden or lost or subject to uncertainty, and energy is always conserved. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#444444">In your case by taking the photon and electron in isolation conservation issues seem to be arising? Hope this helps.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#444444">Best wishes</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#444444">Vladimir</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><br>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 17:31:33 -0700<br>
To:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="color:purple">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><br>
CC:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:jsarfatti@aol.com"><span style="color:purple">jsarfatti@aol.com</span></a><br>
Subject: Re: [General] inertia</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Hello all,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> I’ve been thinking about the unexplained 0.424 Newtons force acting on a circulating double-looped charged photon to keep it in its trajectory. Any double-looping-photon electron model
should have this force acting on the circling photon, such John and Martin’s model and Chip’s model. The force doesn’t have an obvious source. It continuously changes the direction of the circling momentum without changing the resting energy of the photon.
It may be that vector momentum is just not conserved within fundamental particles even though it is conserved between two or more particles in their mutual interactions. I believe that the Dirac equation solution for a free electron hints at this internal
non-conservation of momentum also during zitterbewegung motion of the free electron whose average velocity is v but whose eigenvalue for speed is c. The position-momentum relations for the double-looped photon model of the electron, as I recall, are below
or just at the the exact uncertainty expression of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: delta x times delta p > 1/2 hbar , for position and momentum of an object in a particular coordinate direction. So it might not be possible to experimentally determine
if linear momentum is conserved or not within a particle. The indirect evidence that there is such circulating momentum in a particle is the inertial mass m=Eo/c^2 of the particle as it is derived from the photon’s circulating momentum p=Eo/c . If there is
circling momentum for a single particle, then momentum conservation within the particle IS being violated. An analogy: just as an electron has spin but it not experimentally known what inside it is “spinning", an electron has inertial mass but it is not known
what inside the particle is “massing”. But but the spin and the inertial mass are known experimentally. A double-looping photon model explains both what is “spinning" and what is “massing" in an electron.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> Richard</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="color:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="color:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com"><span style="color:purple">viv@universephysics.com</span></a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="color:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au"><span style="color:purple">viv@etpsemra.com.au</span></a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="color:purple">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>