<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.yiv6729264856apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:yiv6729264856apple-converted-space;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.yiv6729264856
{mso-style-name:yiv6729264856;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi Vivian<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I am an admirer of your approach to solving these puzzles. You book is proving very interesting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>You wrote in you las email,”</span> Further I suggest the rotating photon idea is the source of the special relativity corrections. <span style='color:black'>”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Actually, if mass in the universe is made of confined energy propagating at c, then the form of relativity caused by this is not really SR. It is slightly different, but different in very important ways if we wish to really understand the nature of subatomic particles.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Vivian Robinson<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 14, 2016 3:48 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Richard,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I am a physicist who uses mathematics to calculate the extent of the physical effect forwarded. If the calculation matches observation it is good. However it is the ability of the physics and mathematics to make testable predictions that is the major worth of a theory. I have made predictions of some unknown properties of electrons under my presentation. My model stands or falls on those predictions. I believe they will stand. Like I said, I develop a physical description of my model and then apply mathematics to calculate the magnitude of the physical effect. My understanding of the physics leads to those calculations. It is possible that some mathematicians may not be as skilled in experimental physics as myself and therefore may not understand the physics used. That could make the mathematics appear in error. The only way round this is to determine which model matches experimental measurement and can predict unmeasured effects. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>That was the reason for my earlier communication. If I am wrong in both the physics and mathematics, my predictions won't match observation. You consider I have made an error. I consider my calculations to be self consistent with the physics involved and they match observation. Your comments indicate you appear not to have understood the physics involved. Transverse dimensions of composite particles, e.g. a hydrogen atom and larger are maintained by electric charge, which doesn't vary with velocity. An electron going from ≈ 10^-13 m to 10^-17 m is not going to make a measurable difference to a particle with a fuzzy radius of ≈ 10^-10 m. My model is consistent with special relativity. Further I suggest the rotating photon idea is the source of the special relativity corrections. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In summary, if you wish to maintain that my work is in error, please indicate where it doesn't match observation. Experimental measurement is the only reality. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Vivian<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 15/07/2016, at 2:05 AM, Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Vivian,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Thanks for your inputs. I appreciate your appeal to experimental data as the final word on the predictions of different physical hypotheses. But hypotheses can have internal calculation errors or assumptions which reduce their value for making predictions. In your electron model, you calculate that the transverse radius of your electron model reduces as 1/gamma with increasing electron velocity. But your “radius” in your calculation is just a transverse length in relation to your light calculation, and so your light calculation result is therefore not specific to electron size but to ANY transverse length. The mistake you make in your calculation of the reduced electron radius is to assume that the travel time T for light in the transverse direction (the electron’s rest frame) is the SAME travel time T for light traveling along the hypotenuse that is the corresponding light path for a moving electron. Since the hypotenuse is clearly longer than the other sides and so the travel time must also be longer than in the rest frame, your calculation brings you to conclude the the “radius” has decreased by a factor of 1/(gamma), whereas you should conclude from your calculation that ANY transverse length including macroscopic lengths also reduces by 1/gamma, which is a violation of special relativity for “no length contractions in the transverse direction of a moving object” for macroscopic objects.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> The second significant error in your paper is that you assume that the electron’s relativistic kinetic energy is pc= gamma mv c (coming from the electron’s relativistic energy-momentum equation) rather than its correct formula (gamma-1)mc^2 . From this error you “derive” the de Broglie wavelength of your moving electron model. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Jul 14, 2016, at 12:28 AM, John Duffield <<a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>David:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Have a read of Light is Heavy :<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478"><span style='color:purple'>http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478</span></a><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>. It talks about a photon in a mirror-box. If you trap a massless photon in a mirror-box, it increases the mass of that system. When you open the box, it’s a radiating body that loses mass,<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/"><span style='color:purple'>just like Einstein said</span></a>. Note how Einstein used the words<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>body</i><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>and<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>electron</i><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>on the same line?<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><image001.jpg><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The electron is a photon in a box of its own making. Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-momentum for a wave propagating linearly at c. Electron mass is a measure of resistance to change-in-momentum for a wave going round and round at c. It’s that simple. I am sure of it. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>John D</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b><a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com"><span style='color:purple'>davidmathes8@yahoo.com</span></a><br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>13 July 2016 23:06<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='color:purple'>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>>;<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><span style='color:purple'>phys@a-giese.de</span></a><br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] HA: double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Richard</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>In the quest for the single model, one has to consider the possibility that more than one is right. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Clearly, with present peer-reviewed articles all six do not seem compatible. However, three of them might fit together into a cohesive model. While I'm still looking at Grahame's and John D. I've been following Vivian's, but not sure where to fit this model just yet.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_6769"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>There are at least two general approaches. For me, one is dimensional and the other is topological state. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Now, one could simply sort theories by dimension. Chip has a 2D model, Richard a 3D model and Williamson/van der Martin have a 4D model. So one obvious direction is to determine if these models can be nested with the 2D inside the 3D inside the 4D.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Topologically, the 2D model appears as if it's a mapping of the 3D model but is this model compatible only with a 3D spindle torus, or is it possible to have some variation which fits a 3D ring torus?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>As a side note, I've often wondered whether the spindle is part of the source of mass for the electron. Of course, this requires one to use a lowered permittivity in between the spindle and shell leaving a volume of condensed matter in the spindle. Speculatively, the spindle might be used to explain inertia and perhaps even gravity.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>The 4D model will simple tie up one's brain in knots, Hopf to be specific. However, one could view this theory as the overarching theory with other 3D and 2D models able to fit within this theory.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>The 2D theory is of interest since last year Weyl particles were observed in a 2D layer. However, a Weyl particle is charge without mass unlike Dirac particle which has charged mass. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>In between the Dirac and Weyl particles are the Majorna fermions which makes sense if one uses a horn torus since a Majorna fermion is it's own antiparticle. Gauthier's Spin 1 electron would seem to be a Majorna fermion.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>One is entitled to defend their model. However, nature has the final vote and takes on all-comers. Whether all the proposed models of the electron are simply part of a nested solution set...and that might include spacetime itself which is essentially a zero-D model...still does not explain everything known, predicted and especially knowable unknowns.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Best</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>David</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_5960"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_6230"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_7788"><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_1468445298308_7786"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_7785"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1468445298308_7784"><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><hr size=1 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style='color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a>><br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>"<a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><span style='color:purple'>phys@a-giese.de</span></a>" <<a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><span style='color:purple'>phys@a-giese.de</span></a>>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='color:purple'>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>><span class=apple-converted-space> </span><br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Wednesday, July 13, 2016 8:59 AM<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] HA: double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id=yiv6729264856><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Hello Grahame, John and others,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> I’m thinking that with such concentrated attention on double-looping photon models of an electron that a breakthrough may be imminent. Since all our (John W, Chip, Graham, Vivian, John D and my) approaches are quantitatively different (despite their double-loop nature) there’s bound to be a clash of models and opinions, which is great as long a people keep an open mind, which I think we all support.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> Grahame, what do you think is the meaning of the transverse velocity c/gamma in your (and my) electron models? Is anything moving at this speed? I don’t think so. The helically-circulating photon of a moving electron is moving at c. The electron is moving at v in the longitudinal direction. The electron's transverse momentum mc makes sense physically as an invariant independent of the electron’s speed. But is anything moving at the speed v/gamma in the longitudinal direction?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> Grahame, how can each full double loop of the circulating photon of a moving electron be a single wavelength long in your model? It would mean that the single wavelength of the circulating photon is increasing with electron velocity in order for the photon’s wavelength to fit (stretch) along the increasingly long two double loops of a helix of radius R=hbar/2mc of your moving electron model (same R as in your resting electron model). But since the energy of the electron is increasing with speed as E=gamma mc^2 = hf, the circulating photon’s frequency f is increasing as f=gamma fo (where fo=mc^2/h in a resting electron) so its wavelength is (by c=lambda f) decreasing as h/(gamma mc) with increasing electron speed as compared to a resting wavelength h/mc . Something’s got to give! In my model it is the radius of the photon's helix, which (I calculated) has to be R/(gamma^2) for the helically-circulating photon of a moving electron to have a length of one wavelength h/(gamma mc) along each double-loop length. This also partly solves the experimental issue of the experimental size of an electron being less than 10^-18 m at around 30GeV in electron scattering experiments, which your model doesn’t address.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> Grahame, In your model, I repeat: if it composed of a circulating spin 1 hbar photon (at constant helical radius R) of spin hbar, the electron model at relativistic speeds will have a total longitudinal spin of about 1 1/2 hbar, which doesn’t match experiment at all. Again, something has got to give to match experimental spin z-component of hbar/2 of the electron at all velocities.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> John W, does your new photon/electron model clearly satisfy the electron’s experimentally established relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 ? Does it also satisfy the theoretical relationship P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2 where P=E/c is the total momentum of the circulating photon, p is the longitudinal momentum of the electron, and mc is the circulating momentum in a resting electron? If so, it means that the electron’s internal momentum mc and the electron’s longitudinal momentum p=gamma mv are at right angles. How does this relate to your moving electron model?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> John W, you have said earlier that your electron model has spin 1/2 hbar at all electron velocities. Does a calculation show this or is there some symmetry argument that proves this for your model?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> John W, I think no one here is claiming that the spin of an electron is at all like a spinning top, so this is a bit of a "straw man” argument. Thank you very much for your fuller explanation about spin.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> My current thinking about the electrons increasing their internal frequency f=gamma fo with electron speed means that the electron’s internal frequency (due to its circulating photon) is NOT like a macroscopic clock, since this electron frequency does not obey relativistic time dilation (it speeds up rather than slows down with increasing electron speed). This doesn’t mean that the electron (or a radioactive muon) doesn’t show time dilation in other ways, as with the increasing long half-life a relativistic muon with increasing speed compared to a resting muon.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> Finally (for now) electrons therefore are not like macroscopic objects like (light-clocks) that can reflect light up and down while the vertical light-clock moves in the horizontal direction maintaining a constant transverse length, to show and derive time dilation for the macroscopic light clock. Electrons decrease their transverse size with longitudinal speed, but atoms and macroscopic objects do not. Vivian also pointed this out in his article, and I think that John W agrees also.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> Richard</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>On Jul 13, 2016, at 2:56 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>genmail@a-giese.de</span></a>> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Sorry John, I have a different intention.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>My intention is not to confirm Dirac. My intention is to explain particle physics with little or no use of quantum mechanics.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>The result of Dirac (frequency of zitterbewegung) was never confirmed by an experiment. My result is confirmed with high precision. Even though textbooks say that it is not possible by classical means. It is possible, I have shown it.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Regards, Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Am 13.07.2016 um 07:13 schrieb John Williamson:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;word-spacing:0px'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Sorry Albrecht you are just wrong,<br><br>Just look at Dirac's equation for the zitterbewegung and note the factor of 2.<br><br>Regards, John.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;background:white'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div><div id=yiv6729264856divRpF853927><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>] on behalf of Albrecht Giese [<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>genmail@a-giese.de</span></a>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space> </span>Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:55 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] HA: double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>Dear Richard, dear Alex,<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>we all have an own model for the electron, me as well. I refer to my model and I have the following results (now giving more precise numbers). And the model is supposed to cover all leptons and all quarks, to a certain degree photons as well. Here now the numbers for the electron.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>From the mass mechanism (giving m = h(bar) / (R*c) there follows (with a necessary correction for the electric charge)<br><br>R = h(bar) / (m*c) * 1/(1-alpha/2pi) = 3,8660827 * 10^-13 m<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>Now the<span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space> </span><i>classical<span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space> </span></i>result for the magnetic moment of the electron is<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>mu = c*e<sub>0</sub>*R/2 = 9,2847844 *10^-24 Amp*m<sup>2</sup><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>The measured value is mu = 9,2847646 *10^-24 Amp*m<sup>2</sup><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>The difference of both is a factor of 1,000002 corresponding to 2* 10^-6 deviation. This is the magnetic moment of the electron calculated by purely<span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space> </span><i>classical means<span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space> </span></i>with use of this particle model. I think that this is a strong argument for this radius which follows from this model.<span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>Regarding the zitterbewegung, Schrödinger has evaluated the Dirac function with the result that this oscillation has a<span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space> </span><i>speed<span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space> </span></i>of c; he has in my understanding not made any statements about the frequency. According to my text book about the Dirac function, this frequency is quite vague. And this frequency was never measured. In contrast to the magnetic moment of my result above.<span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>A frequency which is well known and verified is the relation between frequency and energy: E = h*f . And this relation follows also very straight from my model. So, I think that this is the better argument. - And I do not need this funny rule of a circuit of 720 degrees.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>Am 10.07.2016 um 05:51 schrieb Burinskii A.Ya.:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Albrect,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Richard is right. Two loops of photon means that one half (!) of the Compton length lies on 360 degree.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>One more argument from Kerr geometry, where radius J=ma (my model). Setting J= hbar /2, gives<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>radius a = hbar/2m.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Alex<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>От: Richard Gauthier [<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a>]<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Отправлено: 9 июля 2016 г. 23:59<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Кому: <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>phys@a-giese.de</span></a>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Тема: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> A better estimate of the size of the electron from Dirac’s and Schrodinger's work is that its radius is hbar/2mc = 1.93 x 10^-13 m (not your value hbar/mc of 3.86 x 10^-13 m) . This corresponds better to Schroedinger’s size estimate of “about 4 x 10-13” since the electron “size" most likely refers to its diameter not its radius. Furthermore, the radius hbar/2mc comes out of Hestenes’ geometric algebra analysis of the Dirac equation. It is also consistent with the 720 degree symmetry of a Dirac spinor. And it generates the election’s spin hbar/2 easily when the radius hbar/2mc is multiplied by the circulating photon model’s momentum mc : S= r x p = hbar/2mc x mc = hbar/2 for a resting electron, without having to make up a complicated explanation about the missing factor of 1/2 that you get from using the radius hbar/mc to calculate the electron’s spin. Furthermore, the hbar/2mc radius generates the Dirac equation electron’s zitterbewegung frequency Fzitt=2mc^2/h which the radius hbar/mc does not.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> Richard<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>On Jul 8, 2016, at 12:06 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>genmail@a-giese.de</span></a><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><mailto:genmail@a-giese.de></span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Grahame,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>regarding the radius of the electron, I think that it is well defined.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Schrödinger evaluated "the size" of the electron in his famous paper of 1930 by QM means, and his result was "about 4 * 10^-13 m". From my model there follows a more precise value which is R = 3.86 * 10^-13 m.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>What about the spin? If the mass of a particle is m = h(bar)/(R*c) (this follows from my model) then you can reorder it: m*R*c = h(bar). This is the classical definition of the angular momentum. The result is constant for a lepton and for a quark independent of the individual particle, but it has a factor of 1/2 missing. The cause is that the mass follows here from a special mechanism which is not reflected by the classical understanding of a mass which is distributed within the particle.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>If interested please look at my site "Origin of Mass". ( <a href="http://www.ag-physics.org/" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>www.ag-physics.org</span></a><a href="http://www.ag-physics.org/" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><http://www.ag-physics.org/></span></a> )<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Best regards<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Albrecht<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Am 08.07.2016 um 11:45 schrieb John Williamson:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Yep it is,indeed not so simple.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Grahame, you say ...<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Angular momentum is given by linear tangential momentum multiplied by radius - so angular momentum of the electron is mcR. Since mc is constant, R must also be constant if angular momentum is invariant (which I believe we agree it is)<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Hmm, I kind of do and do not agree. This kind of thing is (perhaps) part of the story, but anyway only a part. Such a thing is, indeed A component of angular momentum, but it is wholly inadequate to describe quantum spin. It is the only component for simple models where a something goes round and round in circles in ordinary space, even so it immediately begs the question "what is R?" and then the further question "what is m?" let alone the deeper questions - why that R and why that m? and what is it orbiting about and what is orbiting?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Going to "what is R?. The R needs to be, in my view, at least “complex”. I recently read your 1973 article Alex. Very beautiful. 1973! Had we been aware of it at the time I’m sure Martin and I would have referenced it as a possible confinement scenario. There you recognize, correctly, the huge angular momentum density and use that as an input. I think the subsequent double covering problems and the sign change similar to those encountered by other folk in trying to model stuff using the half-integer Legendre polynomials, are best treated by going more complex than complex, and using a proper non-commutative algebra. Tricky, I know, but nature, (especially 3D rotations) IS non-commutative.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Coming back to angular momentum and the underlying nature of spin. This IS hard. No simple way round it. Properly, the momentum is itself contains a division of space by time (the velocity). It is properly a bi-vector. Further, the orbital angular momentum (what Grahame is talking about), contains a multiplication of this by a perpendicular vector (R ). That is, properly, a tri-vector (the dual of a vector). Remember, torque and energy have the same SI units (force times distance), but are quite different (energy is a scalar, torque is a bi-vector). Same kind of thing needed here in your thinking and visualisation (but worse). You can think of the bi-vector ness (of the trivector) either in your momentum or in your “radius” –either way hypercomplex. Also – to go further you need to go to differential forms – not just see this as just some mass m orbiting on some (massless) stick of fixed length R! Sorry Grahame, but this is what your model of angular momentum looks like to me. Orbiting around what? What is orbiting and what is it orbiting around?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>This all sounds pretty horrible, but it is not as bad as you think. The Maxwell equations already contain much of this complexity, and describe light well. One of the Maxwell equations IS the (partial at least) tri-vector equation for the electromagnetic fluid. Analysing this properly, with the right extensions, does give an intrinsic angular momentum density which can be integrated. I’m not very good at this kind of thing, but that is just the kind of thing I’m trying to do.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>My new photon wavefunction does, at least do this. As the energy varies the curvature varies inversely to maintain the angular momentum at hbar to arbitrary energies. Sticking this into our electron model then gives a half-integral spin at arbitrary energies (since it is a double-loop and transforms, further, as a looping photon).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Anyway gotta go .. still dealing with fallout from the exams …<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Regards, John.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></span></a>] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com></span></a>]<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 6:13 AM<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Hello Grahame,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> Unfortunately the situation is not so simple. Neither of our published electron models includes a specific photon model with its own spin, where this photon model moves along the helical trajectory described in our models. If that photon moving along the helical trajectory has a spin that is is independent of the energy of the photon (which is the nature of photons) then as the photon's trajectory in the your double-loop constant helical radius electron model gets more and more straight with increasing electron speed, then the spin of this circulating photon adds more and more to the spin 1/2 of your electron model produced by its circling transverse component of momentum mc at constant radius R. The result is that a circulating spin 1 photon along your constant radius R helical trajectory would give your electron model a total spin of one and a half units of spin hbar at highly relativistic velocities. A circulating spin 1/2 photon traveling along your constant radius R trajectory would give your electron model a total spin of 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 unit of hbar of spin at highly relativistic velocities. It is only if the radius R of the photon’s helical trajectory decreases with increasing velocity to become insignificant (compared to R in a resting electron) at relativistic velocities that the spin of the electron model at relativistic velocities will equal only the spin of the photon composing the electron model. Ideally the helically circulating photon model of the electron will have longitudinal spin component 1/2 hbar at all velocities of the electron model from very slow velocities to very highly relativistic velocities.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> I have an unpublished internally superluminal (v=c sqrt(2) ) helically circulating spin-1/2 photon model whose spin remains 1/2 at all energies, which may be suitable for modeling the electron. I described this photon model in this email list in the past. The radius of my published spin-1/2 charged-photon electron model’s photon trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 with increasing electron velocity, so this does not produce the complication described above when the helical radius of the photon’s trajectory is a constant R at all electron velocities.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> Richard<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>On Jul 7, 2016, at 1:00 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>grahame@starweave.com</span></a><a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><mailto:grahame@starweave.com></span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Thanks Richard,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>That's precisely what I've been trying to say, without in any way resting on any generally-accepted results that might be regarded as consequences of SR (and so open to question).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>If we agree that the transverse momentum component of the electron is a direct consequence of the rotational component of its formative photon (as I hope we do!) then that rotational component is acting at radius R of the electron at that time from its centre. Angular momentum is given by linear tangential momentum multiplied by radius - so angular momentum of the electron is mcR. Since mc is constant, R must also be constant if angular momentum is invariant (which I believe we agree it is).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Just one further point: Richard, you refer to m as the electron's invariant mass. If we regard mass as that quality of an object that resists acceleration (and so is proportional to the instantaneous force required to induce an instantaneous acceleration), then my research indicates that the mass is not invariant - though it will appear so from measurements taken within the electron's moving frame. My analysis shows that objective mass varies with speed and the relationship E = mc^2 is applicable only for an objectively static object/particle. The m referred to above, as I see it, is the objective rest-mass of the electron (i.e. its mass when objectively static), which corresponds to the energy required to maintain the formative structure of the electron (as opposed to that required to maintain its linear motion). This is of course constant.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Grahame<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>----- Original Message -----<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>From: Richard Gauthier<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com></span></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></span></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 6:42 AM<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Chip and Grahame,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> Lets be specific to the electron to avoid unnecessary vagueness. The moving electron (composed of a circulating photon) has a constant transverse internal momentum component mc and a longitudinal external momentum component p=gamma mv. These two momenta add vectorially (by the Pythagorean theorem) to give P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2 where P=E/c is the momentum P=gamma mc of the helically circulating photon of energy E = gamma mc^2 that is the total energy of the linearly moving electron, modeled by the helically moving photon. This relationship is equivalent to the relativistic energy-momentum equation for a moving electron: E^2 = (pc)^2 + m^2 c^4 which, substituting E=Pc, gives (Pc)^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2) c^2 .. Dividing by c^2 gives P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2 as given above. So as the electron speeds up, the transverse momentum component mc of the electron’s total (internal plus external) momentum P remains constant even for a highly relativistic electron. The electron’s constant transverse internal momentum component mc corresponds to (and leads to a derivation of) the electron’s invariant mass m.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> Richard<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>On Jul 6, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>grahame@starweave.com</span></a><a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><mailto:grahame@starweave.com></span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Yes Chip,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Certainly the momentum of the confined wave increases - but that increased momentum should not ALL be reckoned as ANGULAR momentum of the electron.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>We know that a component of the momentum of that photon is linear - it's the linear momentum of the electron in motion. There is another component of that photon that's orthogonal to that, i.e. in the direction of the cyclic motion of the photon. As the linear velocity of the electron increases, the linear component of the photon momentum increases - however the orthogonal, cyclic, component of that photon momentum does NOT increase, since the 'pitch angle' of the helical motion of that photon increases with linear electron velocity, and so also with photon frequency, so as to precisely cancel out the effect of that increased frequency in the resolved-component cyclic direction.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>The angular momentum of the electron, dictated by the angular momentum contribution of the photon, does NOT depend on the FULL momentum of the photon - it ONLY depends on that component of the photon that acts cyclically, i.e. the component that's orthogonal to the linear motion of the photon. That component remains constant (as long as the radius of the photon cycle remains constant).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>For example, if an electron is travelling with linear speed 0.6c then its formative photon is travelling in a helical path which, if we were to flatten it out (as in relativistic energy-momentum relation) we'd find that formative photon having a linear motion component of 0.6c and cyclic speed component of 0.8c. This means that the ANGULAR momentum imparted by the photon will only be 0.8 of that which it would give if it were travelling fully cyclically at speed c (as for a static particle). Since the frequency of the photon will be increased by a gamma factor of 1/0.8 for such motion, the decreased (0.8) contribution of momentum for increased (1/0.8) frequency will be exactly what it was for the static particle.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>I hope that helps make things clearer.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Grahame<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>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"><span style='color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com></span></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</span></a>><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>phys@a-giese.de</span></a><a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><mailto:phys@a-giese.de></span></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</span></a><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1></span></a>><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>[<a href="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png</span></a>]<a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient></span></a> Virenfrei. <a href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>www.avast.com</span></a><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient></span></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>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"><span style='color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'><mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com></span></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</span></a>><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>phys@a-giese.de</span></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</span></a>><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='background:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial'></a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><div style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellpadding=0 style='border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt'><tr><td width=55 style='width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple;text-decoration:none'><img border=0 width=46 height=29 id="_x0000_i1027" src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></td><td width=470 style='width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:13.5pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E'>Virenfrei.<span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space> </span><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style='color:#4453EA'>www.avast.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></td></tr></table></div></div></div></blockquote><div id=yiv6729264856yqtfd80207><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellpadding=0 style='background:white;border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial;word-spacing:0px'><tr><td width=55 style='width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple;text-decoration:none'><img border=0 width=46 height=29 id="_x0000_i1028" src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png"></span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></td><td width=470 style='width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:13.5pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E'>Virenfrei.<span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space> </span><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style='color:#4453EA'>www.avast.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></td></tr></table><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span class=yiv6729264856><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>_______________________________________________</span></span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><span class=yiv6729264856><span style='background:white'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at</span></span><span class=yiv6729264856apple-converted-space><span style='background:white'> </span></span></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:purple;background:white'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><span class=yiv6729264856><span style='background:white'><a href="</span></span></span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:purple;background:white'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a></span><span class=yiv6729264856><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>"></span></span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><span class=yiv6729264856><span style='background:white'>Click here to unsubscribe</span></span><br><span class=yiv6729264856><span style='background:white'></a></span></span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div id=yiv6729264856yqtfd43649><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id=yqtfd65819><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com"><span style='color:purple'>davidmathes8@yahoo.com</span></a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<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">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">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>