<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Dear Chandra (and hi Eric ) thank you for your encouraging words to Eric but knowing him it is hardly social recognition that he seeks! :) He has shown in painstaking experiments backed by solid theory ( threshold absorption) that the point photon, Einstein's billiard ball, so to speak, simply does not exist and there is no particle-wave duality for light. This is such a fundamental claim that it needs to be fully checked, widely understood and acknowledged by physicists. It demolishes concepts like probability other than a mere mathematical model, and explains Bell et al simply without resort to the usual QM nonsense like wave collapse. All QM weirdness, multiple universe interpretations etc dissipate like a bad odor as they should have done a century ago... but for the adoption of Einstein's duality concept!!</span></div><div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Bravo yes Maxwell's epsilon and mu are indeed indicative of a vacuum tension field, a local ether phenomena that allows e/m transmission and much more. In my Beautiful Universe model I have provided a very specific mechanical model of how this tension operates on the smallest scale: Miniature Bloch spheres spinning in units of Planck's constant (h) - dielectric dipolar nodes attract and repel neighbors like slippery spherical gears and self-assemble to form the stuff of everything - matter, light, gravity, etc. There is nothing else there! </span></div><div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">In the attached figure (Fig 5 from <a href="http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf">http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf</a> ) a node rotates (dashed black arrows) to provide forwards momentum ) even as it spins internally giving a local ' energy density' . The neighboring nodes must rotate too in a domino effect, hence the resistance or tension. If the gears were not slippery a local rotation will be transmitted instantly to all nodes to infinity and c would be infinite. Maxwell initially provided a similar physical model of gears, the slipperiness aided by ball-bearing- like sub gears, but the model was not developed properly and was abandoned. A photon is a pattern of millions of such nodes while an electron is born when plus and minus poles of three or more contiguous nodes lock to form the particle. I am struggling with simulating this in 2D in BASIC!</span></div><div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Cheers and good luck to us all</span></div><div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Vladimir<br></span><img src="cid:1D57FF9F-C546-4EC7-BC48-12BDC9A98CC1" alt="image1.JPG" id="1D57FF9F-C546-4EC7-BC48-12BDC9A98CC1"></div><div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">________________</span><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="http://vladimirtamari.com">vladimirtamari.com</a></span></div></div><div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span><div id="AppleMailSignature"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br><br>_____________________</span><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="http://vladimirtamari.com">vladimirtamari.com</a></span></div></div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">On Jun 5, 2016, at 5:26 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <<a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br></span></div><blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Eric: Keep up your good work and learn to enjoy your own successes without waiting for social recognitions or rewards! You will feel much less frustrated. Of course, if it comes along the way, accept it and enjoy it even more. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><font color="#454545"> </font></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">PS: Non-Interaction of light waves was experimentally established, literally a thousand years ago by Alhazen. Then in 1678, Huygens postulated the same concept to promote his non-interacting “secondary wavelet” hypothesis as the basis for wave propagation. The generation of secondary wavelets, everywhere in the forward field, <b><i>automatically demands the existence of a continuous tension field as the “platform” for wave propagation.</i></b> I am sure, Huygens spent a lot of time watching propagation of water waves facilitated by the surface tension field of water. Then, in 1864 (?), Maxwell’s wave equation provided those necessary tensions (“epsilon” and “mu”), built into his wave equation. </span></p></div></blockquote><br>_____________________<div><a href="http://vladimirtamari.com">vladimirtamari.com</a></div></div><div><br>On Jun 5, 2016, at 5:26 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <<a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<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: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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Helvetica Neue";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* 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.yiv4842764506apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:yiv4842764506apple-tab-span;}
span.yiv4842764506
{mso-style-name:yiv4842764506;}
span.yiv4842764506apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:yiv4842764506apple-converted-space;}
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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Eric: Keep up your good work and learn to enjoy your own successes without waiting for social recognitions or rewards! You will feel much less frustrated. Of course, if it comes along the way,
accept it and enjoy it even more. <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"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">PS: Non-Interaction of light waves was experimentally established, literally a thousand years ago by Alhazen. Then in 1678, Huygens postulated the same concept to promote his non-interacting “secondary
wavelet” hypothesis as the basis for wave propagation. The generation of secondary wavelets, everywhere in the forward field,
<b><i>automatically demands the existence of a continuous tension field as the “platform” for wave propagation.</i></b> I am sure, Huygens spent a lot of time watching propagation of water waves facilitated by the surface tension field of water. Then, in 1864
(?), Maxwell’s wave equation provided those necessary tensions (“epsilon” and “mu”), built into his wave equation. <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 [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Eric Reiter<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 04, 2016 4:01 PM<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>
<div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130473">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">Hello Vivian and others who read this blog.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130476">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">You asked for evidence for photon models. I agree that matter is composed of light speed energy because it explains relativity so well. However, there are many problems with the photon
model. There is much misunderstanding of the photon model. The key problem with the photon is whether such a quantity of light in any way holds itself together. An alternative is the threshold model that says: an hf is emitted and then spreads classically,
and an hf is a threshold at absorption. I did many experiments to substantiate this. I recently delivered a talk at a conference and made a video.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130479">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgrQFyr2_Bg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgrQFyr2_Bg</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130479">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="color:black">Wolfgang Baer who also attended our SPIE 2015 is part of this video.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130593">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">All this entanglement, and spooky stuff comes from this idea that somehow light holds itself together. It does not need to do that to explain key experiments. My tests show this. It
is like what Chandra says about non-interaction of light. If light does not interact with itself, how can light collapse its wave function? The answer is that we need to re-examine several key experiments. I explain how in my 2015 SPIE paper. <a href="http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=2441836" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_280419">http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=2441836</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130593">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">If you have trouble seeing this work please contact me and I will send it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130593">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> There is no wave function collapse. There is no entanglement. There are no photons. The accumulation hypothesis was misrepresented to you in your textbooks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130593">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> Furthermore, I so often see hf=m^2 used to get a matter frequency. This would give you only one frequency, except for relativistic effects. When we do matter-wave diffraction we have
a matter wavelength. Since we know the velocity, it will not give you that freq we just calculated. That freq from mc^2 is true only at the threshold of pair creation/ annihilation. The way I do it is to say charge is the envelope of Schrodingers Psi, where
I use a non- probabilistic interpretation the way Schrodinger originally intended. The inner Psi matter wave goes c. When I split the alpha like a wave, I kept reworking it for 3 years to convince myself. I discovered my<i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_288410">
unquantum effect</i> in 2001 and have been testing it many ways since. What I/we always needed was to find someone to reproduce my simple tests. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130593">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130593">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">The key points in my experiments are that there are 4 steps: (1) we set thresholds to make sure we are not looking at half height pulses, (2) we do a sandwich beam-split coincidence test
to ensure our source emits one-at-a-time, 3) we re-arrange the detectors to be one in front of the other and read a coincidence rate, 4) we shade the source to read background in coincidence and subtract it from step 3. We will see the coincidence rate exceeds
chance. QM predicts chance. QM falls and the threshold model covers these new experiments. Plus, with re-interpretation, the threshold model covers key past experiments others used to uphold QM. Now please do not say I am looking at half pulses or accuse
me of something else without looking at my work. Thank you for your consideration.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130593">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> Eric Reiter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130593">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130593">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130510">
<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 id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130508">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130507">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_130506">
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;background:white">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">
<hr size="1" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><b id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_268756"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">
Vivian Robinson <<a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</a>><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 id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_293284">Sent:</b> Friday, June 3, 2016 7:56 PM<br>
<b id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_298083">Subject:</b> Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_134145">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="yiv4842764506">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_237664">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">Richard,</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_293277">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_293275">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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:- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_293271">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">1<span class="yiv4842764506apple-tab-span">
</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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_293273">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">2<span class="yiv4842764506apple-tab-span">
</span>Experiment is the only arbiter of theory. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">3<span class="yiv4842764506apple-tab-span">
</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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">4<span class="yiv4842764506apple-tab-span">
</span>Reduce the mathematics to its simplest form. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">To All <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_237677">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_237666">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_237663">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_237675">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">Vivian Robinson<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">On 04/06/2016, at 8:15 AM, Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_293253">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">Hello Vivian,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> 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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> 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></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_293252">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_293250">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> But let me repeat the two other significant errors that I spotted, which affect other relativistic derivations in your article.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1464836063453_293249">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> 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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> 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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> 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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> 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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> with best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><electrons are spin one half charged photons generating de Broglie wavelength SPIE copy.pdf><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">On Jun 1, 2016, at 5:00 PM, Vivian Robinson <<a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" target="_blank">viv@universephysics.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">Hi Chip,</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">
</span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">
</span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">
</span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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 class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">
</span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">
</span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">
</span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><a href="http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013081410504275.pdf" target="_blank">http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013081410504275.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506apple-tab-span"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">
</span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">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><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","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 Neue","serif";color:black">Cheers,</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","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 Neue","serif";color:black">Vivian Robinson.</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","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 Neue","serif";color:black">PS<span class="yiv4842764506apple-tab-span">
</span>A copy of my electron paper, sent for the benefit of new participants is</span><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"> in the following email.</span></span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">On 02/06/2016, at 12:09 AM, "Chip Akins" <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">chipakins@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="color:black">Dear John Williamson and Martin van der Mark</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="color:black">Your 1997 paper on the electron may have had a much greater influence than you thought.</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="color:black">The aspect of this which I would like to address is the simple premise that matter is made from confined light-speed energy.</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="color:black">If this is true then there is only one form of “relativity” which can be supported.</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="color:black">The consequences of matter being comprised of confined light-speed energy lead to inescapable conclusions regarding “relativity”.</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="color:black">Are there comments from the group?</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="color:black">Chip</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b></span><span class="yiv4842764506apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></span><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">General
[mailto:general-<a href="mailto:bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]</span></span><span class="yiv4842764506apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></span><span class="yiv4842764506"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">On
Behalf Of</span></b></span><span class="yiv4842764506apple-converted-space"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></b></span><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Vladimir
Tamari</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
<span class="yiv4842764506"><b>Sent:</b></span><span class="yiv4842764506apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="yiv4842764506">Sunday, May 29, 2016 9:30 PM</span><br>
<span class="yiv4842764506"><b>To:</b></span><span class="yiv4842764506apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="yiv4842764506">Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>></span><br>
<span class="yiv4842764506"><b>Subject:</b></span><span class="yiv4842764506apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="yiv4842764506">Re: [General] inertia</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Richard, </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">without going into the details of your model, you mentioned:</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><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></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#444444;background:white">In cellular-automata schemes, such as my</span></span><span class="yiv4842764506apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#444444;background:white"> </span></span><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#444444;background:white"><a href="http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf" target="_blank"><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></span><span class="yiv4842764506apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#444444;background:white"> </span></span><span class="yiv4842764506"><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></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><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></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#444444">Best wishes</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#444444">Vladimir</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;background:white">
<span style="color:black">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></span><span class="yiv4842764506apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></span><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a></span></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
<span class="yiv4842764506">Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 17:31:33 -0700</span><br>
<span class="yiv4842764506">To:</span><span class="yiv4842764506apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="yiv4842764506"><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><br>
<span class="yiv4842764506">CC:</span><span class="yiv4842764506apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="yiv4842764506"><a href="mailto:jsarfatti@aol.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">jsarfatti@aol.com</span></a></span><br>
<span class="yiv4842764506">Subject: Re: [General] inertia</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Hello all,</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> 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></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> Richard</span></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="yiv4842764506"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></span><span style="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"></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" target="_blank">viv@universephysics.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div id="yiv4842764506yqtfd04960">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="yqtfd47980">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:unquant@yahoo.com">unquant@yahoo.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:vladimirtamari@hotmail.com">vladimirtamari@hotmail.com</a></span><br><span><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"></span><br><span>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br><span></a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>