<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Dear Chip
& Richard<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>(and any
others who may be interested),<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Richard
(Chip, I've commented on double-loop in response to you further
down):<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>I’m as sure
as you are that you didn’t give John W & Martin’s toroidal-photon ref as
evidence for your two-loop model of the electron – my response on that was to
John, not you, since he proposed that the evidence I sought was from their
analysis, de Broglie’s theoretical work and practical experiment.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I fully concur with your observation
that your model is consistent with this concept without being proof of it – a
point that I hope I made clear to John in my response.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>(More on that double-loop
shortly.)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>With regard
to your views on subjective and objective realities: an objective reality
depends not one whit on how many people do, or do not, believe it; a subjective
reality can’t be ‘promoted’ to objective reality even if every physicist on the
planet believes it, if it’s not factually correct.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Subjective reality is what appears to be
happening, as a consequence of factors affecting the observer or measuring
device; objective reality is what is <B>actually</B> happening, irrespective of
whether or not anybody is observing or measuring it (or believes it).</SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Put simply:
the question of subjective/objective reality has nothing whatever to do with
belief. If I dip a straight rod in water it will appear to have
a bend in it at the waterline; this is a subjective impression ('subjective
reality'). However we all know that this is an optical illusion caused by the
change in refractive index - nobody believes that the rod has been bent by being
placed in the water; the objective reality is that the stick is in fact still
straight - and that reality is totally independent of whether everyone believes
it, nobody believes it or anything in between. The fact that the reasons
for the apparent (subjective) reality of SR are rather more complex does not
make them any less of an illusion - nor does the fact that thousands/millions
are taken in by that illusion make it any more of an objectiv truth.</SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Let’s take
the issue of ‘closed time-like curves’: subjective experience leads to the
widely-held view that speed-related time dilation is reciprocal between inertial
reference frames; this in turn leads to the belief that the ability to cross
space faster than light is able make that trip (by whatever means) could lead to
time paradoxes and hence breaches in causality.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If, as the evidence of closed-loop
photonic particles indicates, this proposed reciprocity of time dilation is an
illusion, then no amount of belief in it, by any number of the most erudite
brains on the planet, will make it true – so neither would such belief lead to
the possibility of time paradoxes.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Whilst this is not apparent either way from our present state of
knowledge, the truth is most assuredly either one way or the other – and it will
not be swayed in the slightest by our belief, any more than the earth became
flat because at one time the majority of the world population believed it
<B>was</B> flat.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>By the same
token we could concoct the most elegant theory of gravitation based on the
premise of a frame-symmetric universe – and it could turn out to be no more
valid than the old phlogiston theory of combustion.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This could be disastrous for us as a
species if we were more impressed with our own theories than we were with
getting to the root of what’s actually going on – a flawed theory of gravity (or
any other aspect of space & time) could seriously impede our long-term
objectives.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>In brief: my
research has led me to a view of the universe in which there is one unique
objectively static rest frame (quite possibly the rest frame of the CMB),
relative to which all photons move with objective speed c in all
directions.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>All other frames are
states of absolute motion; relative to any one of those frames photons travel at
true relative speeds given by the vectorial combination of their own speed, c,
and the velocity of the frame in question.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>This is the objective reality.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>However, for
reasons too involved to detail here (covering a few chapters and a couple of
mathematical appendices in my book), cyclic-photon particle formation (including
formation of observers and measuring instruments) leads to a subjective view of
reality in which light is measured as travelling at speed c in every direction
no matter which inertial frame the observer may be moving in (or in one unique
case, static in).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This, coupled
with objective time dilation and length contraction in all frames other than the
objectively static frame, leads to a subjective perception of a reality that
conforms with a fully reciprocal ‘Lorentz transformed’ reality – including
results in particle colliders that appear to conform precisely to such a
perceived reality.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>I have to
say here that I most assuredly did not start out with this view and seek to
prove it – quite the reverse.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I
started with an interest in the nature of time, and the flow of time that leads
to the process that may broadly be described as ‘ageing’ (in every sense of that
word, from particles to galaxies and everything in between).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I didn’t initially regard that flow as
the flow of electromagnetic energy, indeed for some while I puzzled over the
nature of what I labelled ‘tau-flux’.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>I also regarded SR as gospel, and worked from that premise – till I began
to hit inherent contradictions.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It
then became apparent to me that my ‘tau-flux’ was in fact the electromagnetic
energy – light – that both forms particles and transfers information (including
what we refer to as ‘mass’) between particles.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Over a period of time – more than a
decade – it became very clear that this explained every feature of Special
Relativity, without reference to any special property of light other than the
fact that matter is itself formed from light.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>[It has since become clear that every
feature of General Relativity is also fully explained by this structure of
matter – that’s another story, which itself requires a broadening of outlook
that those who are still hooked on SR will certainly not be ready
for!]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>If you
understand what I’ve just said – my distinction between the subjective and
objective views of SR – then it should be possible for you yourself to derive
the dual description of a </SPAN><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1:place><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Compton</SPAN></st1:place></st1:City><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB> scattering
event that I’ve referred to.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>If that’s not possible for you then this suggests that I haven’t put
across as clearly as I’d wish the nature of this subjective/objective reality –
so my 6-pager wouldn’t ‘land’ with you anyway.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>You ask
whether my approach (view) is susceptible to experimental proof.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I would say that a fair amount of
experimental proof already exists for this view, since there is a whole raft of
experiential data for which no explanation yet exists – the proposal of
‘inertial frame symmetry’ is no more an explanation than ‘tree sprites’ is an
explanation for the clear existence of something we refer to as ‘life’ in trees;
it’s a belief in a metaphysical property for which no scientific reason has yet
been advanced. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The view that I
present, along with others such as Chip, offers a full and thorough explanation
for all of that data, those perceived phenomena.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Just as Einstein regarded Fizeau’s
experiment, from half a century earlier, as experimental evidence for his
theory, that raft of otherwise unexplained data constitutes a rather substantial
body of evidence for the first proposed explanation for the phenomenon of
(perceived) frame symmetry.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>I can go
further than this.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I propose that
the extensively experimentally validated fact of the ‘Relativistic
Energy-Momentum Relation’ can be shown to reveal a contradiction in the concept
of inertial frame symmetry.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Put
together with the evidence of the CMB, of which is stated on the Smoot Group
website: “This would seem to violate the postulates of Galilean and Special
Relativity…” (with no suggestion that it actually doesn’t – bearing in mind that
Smoot was the Nobel Laureate who mapped the CMB, and so should know), this gives
evidence at both ends of the cosmic scale to support this explanation for the
as-yet unexplained.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Chip (and
Richard):<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>===============<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>I’m fully in
support of a static electron being formed from a double-loop of a single
wavelength of a photon.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Apart from
anything else this is fully consistent with the phenomenon of zitterbewegung,
supported experimentally by Gouanere et al (more on this shortly).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However I don’t see any reason (other
than a belief in objective SR) to assume that this holds for an electron on the
move (more on this shortly, too).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I
don’t see this as being inconsistent with angular
momentum.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>If a static
electron is formed from a closed-loop photon then that electron will take the
form of a spiralling photon when it’s on the move.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The frequency of that photon will be
increased by factor gamma, however the momentum of that photon will now be a
composite of angular and linear momentum.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>The angular component will be identical to that of the static electron
(corresponding to the cyclic component of that photon motion) – the true angular
momentum of an electron will be invariant.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>This is of
course exactly what one would expect.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>If energy in the form of a linear photon sets an electron in motion then
that electron should have precisely the same angular momentum as it did when
static.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Given that the linear
component of photon flow is determined by the linear speed of the electron
itself, and that the speed of the photon is c, these constraints require that
the radius of the cyclic path of the photon remains constant; the ratio of
cyclic to linear speed components doesn’t permit otherwise, it seems to
me.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>If a photon
forming an electron changes from a closed-loop state to a spiral state (the
electron starts moving) then either the electron diameter contracts or the time
per loop increases.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The latter is
consistent with SR (since looping period must extend to match time dilation),
it’s also fully consistent with a comprehensive explanation of perceived effects
attributed to SR; the former fulfils neither of these criteria. <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>[Just one point of convergence of
cyclic-photon particle formation with SR perceptions is the clear fact that time
effects are carried by energy flows – there is nothing else; by this reasoning
the longer cycle time for spiral cycles is the <B>cause</B>, not just an
<B>effect</B>, of particle time dilation.]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>This longer
cycle time is borne out by results of the Gouanere study, which shows
zitterbewegung slowing with particle speed (zitter frequency reduces),
indicating slower looping of the photon; the Gouanere result doesn’t in any way
require two cycles per wavelength in the moving particle, simply that the cycle
rate reduces by factor 1/gamma.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>This would not be seen for an electron with diminishing radius and
unchanging cycle time.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>In other
words a photon with <B>increased</B> frequency follows a path with
<B>decreased</B> cycle rate.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This
is not in any way a problem unless one is determined to hold on to SR as an
objective reality – with no concrete evidence for that position.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It’s not too difficult, by following
this reasoning, to show that such a position is totally untenable.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>[It’s also most surely the case that if
a cycle takes the same time for static or moving electron as viewed by a static
observer, then the cycle time will be *less* for a moving electron as viewed by
a moving observer (since a cycle will be a cycle, whatever the observer frame)
than a static electron as seen by that static observer – strictly non-PC
non-SR!<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Not even subjectively
acceptable!]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Note that
following this reasoning a complete cycle, as seen from the static frame, will
now take time gamma tau (where tau is 1/nu); given increased frequency of gamma
nu, this gives a ‘frequency’ per complete cycle of gamma^2 nu.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I leave you to figure out the various
implications of that.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Lastly I’d
observe that, though from the subjective viewpoint of the moving observer rest
mass and the relationship E = mc^2 both appear to be conserved, neither in fact
hold objectively in any frame other than the cosmically objectively static
frame.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Again, this has fairly major
implications for physics research.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial>Best regards,</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">Dear Dr. Grahame
Blackwell<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">Bravo! Well
said.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">Regarding the “double
loop” of an electron. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">You most likely
already know this. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">It is my
understanding that this is assumed principally because of spin angular
momentum. Stern-Gerlach experiments and modifications thereof have
presumably measured the spin angular momentum of electrons with fairly high
precision. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">Then if the momentum
of an EM wave is p=E/c, a double loop with radius wavelength/4 pi would
theoretically yield the correct spin angular momentum.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">Of course this is
based on many assumptions, but these assumptions seem reasonable as a basis to
start from.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; COLOR: black">Chip<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=richgauthier@gmail.com href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard
Gauthier</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz
href="mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz">Phil Butler</A> ; <A
title=abooth@ieee.org href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org">Anthony Booth</A> ; <A
title=sleary@vavi.co.uk href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk">Stephen Leary</A> ; <A
title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">Mark,Martin van der</A> ; <A
title=slf@unsw.edu.au href="mailto:slf@unsw.edu.au">Solomon Freer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, June 27, 2016 4:26 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Photon cycle rate
in moving particle - faster orslower?? - not answered.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hello Grahame,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> I completely understand that you don’t want these six pages
of your book on the Compton effect in relation to your approach to be viewed
“out of context” of the first hundred or so pages of your book, which sets the
context for these six pages and later pages of your book. Perhaps you could
please send a pdf of the FIRST six or so pages of your book so that I (and
others) can get a better idea of the context in which you are writing. For
example, I am not clear yet about your distinction between subjective and
objective realities. From the human perspective, what people experience
individually as their perceptions and conceptions is their subjective reality,
and when enough people agree about their perceptions and conceptions this
agreed-upon content is called objective reality. From the point of view of a
hypothesized cosmic mind, what humans call their objective reality is the
subjective reality of the cosmic mind. There may be other distinctions between
subjective and objective so I would like to understand yours in the context of
your approach.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> When you asked for empirical evidence for my two-looped-photon
model of an electron, I’m sure I did not give the Williamson-van der Mark
electron model hypothesis as such evidence. The double-looped model for me
came from my realization/discovery around 1992 that a single loop of a photon
of length equal to one Compton wavelength h/mc has an exact z-component
(perpendicular to the plane of the loop) of spin of hbar (that of a photon),
while a double-looped photon composed of the same one wavelength h/mc wrapped
around twice has a z-component of spin of exactly 1/2 hbar, the electron’s
experimental value. This simple double-loop model of the electron (which I
developed further over the years) happens to be consistent with the fact that
the zitterbewegung frequency 2mc^2/h from the Dirac equation solution for a
free electron is consistent with the double-looping frequency (not the
frequency f=c/lambda corresponding to the energy E=hf of the photon, but twice
this frequency) of a double-looping photon of wavelength h/mc (the wavelength
of a photon having the energy corresponding to the rest mass of an electron.
There is also a Dirac amplitude hbar/2mc from the Dirac equation solution
which is the radius of the double looping photon model of the electron. None
of this is proof of the double-looped model, but is consistent with the
model.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Is your approach susceptible to experimental proof?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> with best regards,</DIV>
<DIV> Richard</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>