<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=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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-GB link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>John W:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>I volunteer to be a proofreader. Re your email, I feel the urge to comment. You’re black, I’m blue:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>The main problem is that of postulating a circulating photon, without the proper mathematics to describe this. Such a circulating photon is continuously strongly accelerated; that is it is in a non-inertial frame. Applying the standard simple mathematics for relativity is then bound to get your mind in a twist…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>I’m a guy who “roots” for relativity, but IMHO in the end I just don’t think it’s needed here. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Stuff going round and round in circles needs better maths and insight though. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>Well, I like to think I’m good at the insight. You can do the maths. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Even after (if) one has got ones head around all of this the answer to the main question is still missing: what is making the photon go round and round in the first place? What is the confinement mechanism for the electron charge? This is what we should really be discussing. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>I think that’s an easy one. The <i>photon</i> is making the photon go round. There’s nothing else there. To have the insight as to why, you have to remember that when a seismic wave moves through the ground, the ground waves. When an ocean wave moves through the sea, the sea waves. And when an electromagnetic wave moves through space, <i>space waves</i>. Where the wave is, space is curved, just like the surface of the sea is curved where the ocean wave is. A second wave intersecting the first will change direction because of this curvature. If this is so abrupt that the wave starts moving through itself, it will keep on changing direction. If it ends up in a double loop forever moving through itself, what was a field variation or wave propagating linearly at c is now going round and round at c such that it looks like a standing wave. <i>Standing wave, standing field</i>. Only we now apply the label “charge”. Make a paper strip like this then form it into a Mobius strip to get the gist of it. Make sure you slide the ends along so that it ends up looking like a ordinary Mobius strip. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#000099'><img width=1102 height=128 id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image002.jpg@01D1C28E.14C340A0"></span><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>For me, the local force arises, in analogy to the Lorentz force, as a product of the multi-vector field <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>For me it’s just displacement current. <i>It does what it says on the can</i>. Because light consists of transverse undulations <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current#History_and_interpretation">just like Maxwell said</a>. There are no waves where something doesn’t wave. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>one can see the rest mass inherent in particles as a balance of the interaction with the rest of the universe <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>And one can see rest mass as per Martin’s mirror box: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478"><span style='color:#000099;text-decoration:none'>http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478</span></a>. The electron is a photon in a box of its own making. Photon momentum is resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. When that wave is going round and round at c it still offers resistance to change-in-motion. Only we don’t call it momentum any more. We call it mass. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>– one positive one negative – leading to a total mass-energy of the universe of exactly zero<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>No. The rest of the universe is nothing to do with it. As <a href="https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/">Einstein said</a>, the mass of a body is the measure of its energy content. And the electron is such a body. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#000099'><img border=0 width=935 height=317 id="Picture_x0020_3" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D1C28F.AB7505A0"></span><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>John D. </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'> General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> 09 June 2016 09:52<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Vivian Robinson <viv@universephysics.com><br><b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey <nick@bailey-family.org.uk>; Anthony Booth <abooth@ieee.org>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com>; Thomas Blackwood <t.blackwood.1@research.gla.ac.uk><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Gamma from self-confined light<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Hmm,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>I’ve realized that the previous email is far too cryptic for most folk to get much out of it. Let my try to explain why the problem is hard – and not easily addressed by using the standard approach of simple (inertial) relativity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>The main problem is that of postulating a circulating photon, without the proper mathematics to describe this. Such a circulating photon is continuously strongly accelerated; that is it is in a non-inertial frame. Applying the standard simple mathematics for relativity is then bound to get your mind in a twist. One can do the maths for a photon bouncing back and forth fairly simply (as in eqs 18 to 20) and for one bouncing sideways (one has to realize here that field transform only perpendicular to a boost, where space and time transform only along the boost – but this is known). Stuff going round and round in circles needs better maths and insight though. Sorry guys, one really really needs the maths and not just some “losse kreet” about something is something else. One needs a properly relativistic rotating wave-function which transforms properly in every frame to describe this. Now here comes the hard bit: one cannot write a conventional (complex) wave-function in terms of space and time. Whose space? Whose time? These are different for every distinct angle theta in the rotation. On then needs to find a wave function which one can accelerate and will remain a valid wave function under such operations. This needs a Dirac mathematics (at the very least). Such a wave-function is, I propose, equation 21 in the paper attached to the last email, but this is not easy to understand. In the first place the exponents are not complex but hyper-complex (Dirac) elements of a 4D space-time (as they must be). Secondly, although the spatial and temporal components are explicit, and defined for any frame, the wave function as a whole is not in vector-space but bivector space – so one needs, at minimum, to understand this. Without help I think that only Martin has a chance here. Also, the wave-function given is in Cartesian form. The “3” direction for a hydrogen-like solution must then be azimuthal. One must then apply the spherical harmonics in the usual way – but this is not right either for an isolated electron – one really needs (probably) the half-integer Legendre polynomials of the first and second kind (the Ps and Qs) with a matching condition at their interface. Folk, (Merzbacher, for example) have tried and failed with this kind of approach in the past. I think it is pretty much doomed to failure of one tries to use simple complex wave-functions, as they do not incorporate the right relativistic (rotational) transformations and will give a sign error on the interface. If one is lucky one may be able to engineer an even number of errors in such an approach!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Even after (if) one has got ones head around all of this the answer to the main question is still missing: what is making the photon go round and round in the first place? What is the confinement mechanism for the electron charge? This is what we should really be discussing. Viv suggests that this may be a QED type interaction with the rest of the Universe. As I have said in previous emails this is a candidate. Martin calculated (estimated) this decades ago and it is at least of the right order.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>I have done QED calculations in the past (with big computer programs), but this was so long ago I do not even have the code on an old-fashioned floppy. If anyone has any expertise here (with QED) please get in touch and we can discuss it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>For me, the local force arises, in analogy to the Lorentz force, as a product of the multi-vector field with its derivative: GdG. This is outlined in my other SPIE paper last year. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive: one can see the rest mass inherent in particles as a balance of the interaction with the rest of the universe – one positive one negative – leading to a total mass-energy of the universe of exactly zero (as is consistent with that which is observed in experiment). Action and re-action for the self-confinement of the particles we observe in nature.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>I could go on, but should get onto to working on the paper explaining some aspects of this a bit better. It has been sitting untouched since I last had any time over Christmas last year! If anyone feels up for it I will be looking for volunteer proof-readers for it soon – I hope.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Regards, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>-John.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html>