<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Richard,<div><br></div><div>I agree with Albrecht. For a physical relationship between energy and mass through E + mc^2, you have seen my paper on it. Energy is the photon travelling in a straight line. Mass is the same photon confined in a circle of radius equal to half its wavelength. That relationship is directly E = mc^2 and it explains many other properties associated with mass particles. </div><div><br></div><div>Mathematics comes in many forms, the same as languages. Not every one is specialised in all forms of mathematics, anymore than everyone is specialises in all languages. Almost all physicists understand physical descriptions. A physical description of the process accompanied by the appropriate mathematics will go a long way towards helping others understanding the message being presented.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Vivian </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On 07/10/2016, at 7:39 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><p>Richard,</p><p>you know my objection. Inertial mass and momentum are
fundamentally the same physical phenomenon. Just the result of a
different application. And so it is no real explanation to explain
mass by momentum. Because that means that you explain a physical
phenomenon by the same physical phenomenon.</p><p>Albrecht <br>
</p><p>(And you may have a look at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a> ) <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.10.2016 um 15:12 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:DA16948E-6831-4E3E-BE52-0BA7285B767F@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="">John and Vivian and others,</div>
<div class=""> Yes, inertial mass must be defined by F=ma and
F=dp/dt as Newton defined it, though he couldn’t explain what
causes it. It is caused by a particle’s circling internal
momentum, as I derive in <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.academia.edu/25641654/A_New_Derivation_of_Eo_mc_2_Explains_a_Particles_Inertia" class="">https://www.academia.edu/25641654/A_New_Derivation_of_Eo_mc_2_Explains_a_Particles_Inertia</a> ,
which is attached.</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:49 PM, Vivian Robinson <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" class="">viv@universephysics.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<base href="x-msg://1692/" class="">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; " class="">John,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size: 14px; " class="">Thanks
for the advice. I regularly reference Einstein's Ann.
der Phys. 17, 639-641 (1905) paper. By mass I have
tried to think of it as inertial mass m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">i</span>, given
by F = m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">i</span>.a.
Gravitational mass m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">g</span> is different by potential energy
(PE) divided by c squared (m<span style="font-size:
12px; " class="">g</span> = m<span style="font-size:
12px; " class="">i</span> - PE/c^2). Rest mass m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">r</span> is m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">i</span> measured
at velocity = 0 with respect to m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">i</span>.
Relativistic mass m</span><span style="font-size:
12px; " class="">rel</span><span style="font-size:
14px; " class=""> is the mass measured at </span><font class="" size="4">velocity v wrt an observer.
Invariant mass doesn't exist because its value depends
upon its position</font><span style="font-size: large;
" class=""> </span><span style="font-size: large; " class="">wrt</span><span style="font-size: large; " class=""> an observer, </span><span style="font-size:
large; " class="">gravitational field and velocity. In
practice all m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">i</span>,
m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">g</span> and
m<span style="font-size: 12px; " class="">r</span>
will be measured the same within experimental error,
essentially making them invariant. </span></div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size: large; " class=""><br class="">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size: large; " class="">IMHO,
you are quite correct about aspects of the standard
model. There are some very serious problems.</span></div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size: large; " class=""><br class="">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size: large; " class="">Cheers,</span></div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size: large; " class=""><br class="">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span style="font-size: large; " class="">Viv </span></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" size="4"><br class="">
</font>
<div class="">
<div class="">On 06/10/2016, at 4:08 AM, John Duffield
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" class="">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: inherit; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="" lang="EN-GB">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page:
WordSection1; ">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class="">Viv:<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class="">Good stuff. I empathize totally.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class="">Re photons and mass, do make sure
you call it<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">inertial mass</i>. And/or protect
yourself with a reference to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline; " class=""><span style="color:
rgb(0, 0, 153); " class="">Einstein’s
E=mc² paper</span></a>, where the last
line reads thus:<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><i class=""><span style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0,
153); " class="" lang="EN">“If the theory
corresponds to the facts, radiation
conveys inertia between the emitting and
absorbing bodies”.</span></i><i class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></i></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class="">I say this because IMHO the sort of
people who bang on about gluons or the 8<sup class="">th</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>spatial
dimension will use anything cast aspersions
on people like you. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class="">I’ve been doing some major writing
recently, and in doing so I’m getting the
feeling that there’s more wrong with
standard-model physics than people
appreciate. Much more.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class="">Regards<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); " class="">JohnD<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); " class=""> </span></div>
<div class="">
<div style="border-style: solid none none;
border-top-width: 1pt; border-top-color:
rgb(225, 225, 225); padding: 3pt 0cm 0cm; " class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; " class="" lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; " class="" lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general">mailto:general</a>-<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="">bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Vivian
Robinson<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>05
October 2016 09:58<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature
of Light and Particles - General
Discussion <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re:
[General] Proposed photon wave functions<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class="">Rear Richard and others,</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class="">I
submitted my results to the group in the
hope that it would start debate on my
topic. Richard I appreciate that you have
taken time to make a couple of comments. I
would like to add a few points to aid (I
hope) further discussion.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class="">First,
the so called "standard models" of matter
suffer from some disadvantages, not the
least of which is the use of invented
concepts, e.g. quarks, gluons and strings
that have never been separately
identified. String theory is one very bad
example. It uses several space dimensions
that have never been detected along with
particles too small to be ever detected to
make predictions that don't match
observation. However the mathematics is
sufficiently complicated that referees are
prepared to accept that it may have some
future. That is another example of
theoreticians being out of touch with
reality. I am sure that if their funding
body informed them that their salary has
been paid in full in a combinations of
strings in the 8th spatial dimension, our
universe being the three detectable ones
and they can collect it when they find
the eighth dimension and unravel the
strings, they would also be the first to
complain. Yet they would have us believe
that is the origins of the whole universe,
not just their salary.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class="">Quarks
and gluons are another example. They have
never been separately isolated. So Quantum
ChromoDynamics (QCD) theoreticians
developed the concept that
the gluon "force" between quarks increases
as their separation distance increases.
Unfortunately when "satellite" nucleons
orbit a nucleus at a "significant
distance" where quark separations are
quite large, the binding is very weak and
the lifetimes of these nuclei are measures
immilli seconds. As some QCD practitioners
will attest, QCD calculations are not good
at matching observation so theoreticians
keep changing their model until it does.
They have devised 36 quarks, 2 types, 3
generations of each type. three "colours
for each generation, plus their
anti-particles, plus 8 colours or flavours
of gluons, a total of 44 undetected
particles, and they still can't get good
answers. Again by making their mathematics
complex they avoid scrutiny by non
experts. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class="">The
point is that "standard model" physics has
many examples of theoreticians using non
detected particles or entities and
dimensions, to give unsatisfactory answers
to some aspects of experimental
observation. Trying to replace those with
a further set of hypothetical particles,
be they rotars, hods, microvita or faster
than light (superluminal) particles does
not make their concept any better than
those forwarded by standard model
practitioners. Being able to match a few
physical properties by ascribing specific
properties to undetected hypothetical
particles is no advance if all it is doing
is matching a few local properties. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class="">I am
forwarding my work as different. It uses
known properties of free space, namely its
electric permittivity (ep) and magnetic
permeability (mp). It suggests that these
facilitate the passage of packets of
electromagnetic energy called photons,
possibly by being composed of vibrations
in ep and mp. John W and I have used
different wording to convey the idea that
photons convey mass, as was proposed by
Einstein in 1905. I feel sure a suitable
set of words could be found to describe
how those photon oscillations convey that
mass. I have presented four wave equations
that describe the Einstein-de Broglie wave
function psi, along with a physical
representation of them. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class="">I
describe the angular momentum of photons
as being due to the circular wave motion
of the electromagnetic field in circularly
polarised photons. This implies that plane
polarised photons will not have any
angular momentum and hence no intrinsic
spin. This is able to be checked
experimentally. Its rotating centre of
mass only travels at sqrt 2 x c for a
photon composed of a single wavelength. It
is not a super luminal velocity. The
centre of mass is a mathematical point
that rotates. It is not a physical
rotation of a mass traveling faster than
c. The mass of the photon is traveling at
c in its propagation direction. One might
as well say that the wave motion of the
electric field is superluminal because it
follows a sine curve which has a length
longer than the straight line travel of c.
That does not mean that its mass is
travelling faster than c and therefore all
photons are superluminal. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class="">Mathematical
points traveling at faster than c is not
superluminal travel. There has been an
often quoted example of waving a laser
into space. If waved fast enough across
the dark surface of the new moon, it could
be possible to observe the laser point
moving across the moon's surface at faster
than c. That is a mathematical point
moving faster than c. It is not
superluminal motion. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class="">I
submit that making models of hypothetical
particles and ascribing properties to them
is not the same as deriving those
properties from fundamental
considerations. Others are entitled to
their own views.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class="">FYI,
I have been working on this for three
decades. I decided not to publish much of
my work, apart from compiling it into some
extended manuscripts, complete with ISBNs,
that I made available to a few selected
friends and interested parties. My career
experience was that reviewers and critics
have a habit of raising non relevant
objections, bogging authors down and
slowing further progress. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class="">Chandra,
is that the kind of paper you would like
presented at your next SPIE conference? It
will be more advanced by then. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class="">Cheers,<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class="">Vivian
Robinson<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; " class=""> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class="">On 29/09/2016,
at 11:25 PM, Richard Gauthier <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline; " class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt;
margin-bottom: 5pt; " class="">
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">Hello
Vivian, Chip and others,<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""> The
derivations of the radius
R=lambda/2pi of my internally
superluminal photon model and the
corresponding 45-degree forward
angle of the photon model's internal
helical trajectory are given in
Section 5, equations 8 through 17 in
my published 1996 article
“Microvita: A new approach to
matter, life and health”, which I
attach and which is available from
Springer and at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.academia.edu/28777551/Microvita_A_New_Approach_to_Matter_Life_and_Health" style="color: purple;
text-decoration: underline; " class="">https://www.academia.edu/28777551/Microvita_A_New_Approach_to_Matter_Life_and_Health</a>.
My internally-double-looping model
of the electron is also presented
quantitatively there in Section 6.
The electron model there has evolved
into my SPIE relativistic spin-1/2
charged-photon electron model since
then. It follows directly from the
photon model's helical angle of 45
degrees that the internal speed of
the photon model is c sqrt(2), which
I state explicitly in my published
2007 article “FTL quantum models of
the photon and the electron”,
attached below and available from
STAIF-2007 and at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.academia.edu/4429837/FTL_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron" style="color: purple;
text-decoration: underline; " class="">https://www.academia.edu/4429837/FTL_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron</a> . <o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">
Richard<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><Microvita
A New Approach to Matter Life and
Health.pdf><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><FTL
Quantum Models of the Photon and the
Electron.pdf><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
<div class="">
<blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt;
margin-bottom: 5pt; " class="">
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; " class="">On Sep 24,
2016, at 8:34 AM, Richard
Gauthier <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" style="color: purple;
text-decoration: underline; " class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; " class="">Hello Vivian,<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class="">
I’ve gone through your new
article on the photon and it
looks interesting. I
appreciate that your photon
model is now internally
superluminal with an internal
helical speed of c sqrt(2) and
an effective radius of
lambda/2pi. Your photon model
has similarities to Chip’s
model of the photon in this
and other respects and I’m
surprised that you didn’t
reference his work. I would be
interested to see a comparison
between your photon model and
Chip’s. I’d also like to hear
Chip’s comments on your photon
model.<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class="">
Richard<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote style="margin-top:
5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; " class="">
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class="">On
Sep 22, 2016, at 8:55 PM,
Vivian Robinson <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline; " class="">viv@universephysics.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif; " class="">Hodge,<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">It would
still be best if you
sent the article. I
(finally) accessed
some of your STOE
articles but could not
find mse42my.pdf. I am
not exactly sure to
what you are
referring.<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">Some aspects
of your work have
commonality with mine.
I use detectable
photons as the basis
of everything, you use
hods. We are both
trying to show that
everything follows
from that one
particle. I prefer my
approach because
photons are detectable
and have properties to
which my work must
comply. The wave
functions in my
article are their
restriction. Like you
I prefer Newtonian
mechanics to
relativity and quantum
mechanics. There are
many observations that
confirm relativity and
quantum mechanics that
don't match Newtonian
mechanics. My work
must match those
observations. <o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">I have found
that the toroidal
(John W and Martin
vdM) or rotating
photon (Viv R) model
of an electron is one
in which an electron
consists of a photon
of the appropriate
energy (≈ 0.511 MeV at
rest) makes two
revolutions in one
wavelength. It is this
that gives the
electron spin (angular
momentum) of half
hbar. The E - mc^2
relationship between
mass and energy is
mass is the photon
rotating twice within
its wavelength. Unlock
its angular momentum
gives it energy E =
mc^2. As the particle
moves its structure
means that it is
automatically subject
to the special
relativity corrections
of mass, length and
time. I make mention
of other properties,
although as Richard G
pointed out, my
derivation of the
magnetic moment of the
electron was in error
in that paper. I have
now corrected that.<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">I suggest
that all other
particles, stable or
otherwise, are
composed of
appropriate rotating
photons and have
derived the structure
and properties of many
of them based upon
that model. If this is
the structure of all
matter, the special
relativity
corrections are due to
the rotating photon
being "stretched" as
it moves. They are not
some mathematically
imposed restriction.<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">You will find
that when you apply
Newtonian mechanics to
a photon with those
waveforms and mass,
you get Einstein's
general theory of
relativity for space
outside matter, ie,
gravity as we know it.
The exception is that
there is no
singularity at the
Schwarzschild radius
and therefore no black
holes. That doesn't
prevent the existence
of massive objects,
which is all
astronomers are
detecting. It is the
theoretical physicists
who call them black
holes. Astronomical
measurements are still
thousands of times
less accurate than
required to
distinguish between my
metric and the
Schwarzschild metric.
I am confident that
when they do improve,
my metric, with the
gravitational
singularity at the
centre of mass and not
at the Schwarzschild
radius, will hold. <o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">You will then
recognise that gravity
is not inverse square
law. If you studied
Newton's Principia you
will see that he also
worked out what would
happen if gravity was
stronger or weaker
than inverse square
law. His observations
showed that the
planets were following
the trajectories
predicted by the
inverse square law
calculations, leading
to the conclusion that
gravity is controlled
by inverse square.
However, not all
observations follow
the inverse square
law. Conclusion -
gravity is not inverse
square. <o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">The only
reason the Big Bang
theory was accepted
was because early
calculations showed
that, if gravity was
inverse square law, an
infinite static
universe would
collapse in on itself
through gravitational
attraction. That
clearly hasn't
happened. Einstein
tried to overcome it
with his cosmological
constant. His field
equations only allowed
for an expanding or
collapsing universe.
Since forwarding the
Big Bang theory, they
have done everything
to match a new
observation into that
theory, ignoring the
other possibility. If
gravity isn't inverse
square, other
possibilities exist. <o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">Again, using
Newtonian mechanics to
the structure of the
photon I propose,
shows that gravity is
either inverse square
law or stronger for
space outside matter:
Or inverse square law
or weaker for space
inside matter,
something that applies
to the structure of
the universe as a
whole. If you have a
universe in which
gravity is weaker than
the inverse square law
by an amount predicted
from my photon's wave
function, then an
infinite static
universe will not
collapse under
gravitational
influence. Photons
from distant galaxies
will still be
redshifted, as
observed. Things like
gravitational lensing
still occur, although
I am not convinced
that everything
forwarded as
gravitational lensing
is actually
gravitational
lensing. <o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">Forget the
Big Bang theory.
Therefore no inflation
(straight after the
Big Bang). Dark matter
is required to explain
the more rapid
rotation of galaxies.
Based upon other
aspects of inverse
square law, galaxies
and even clusters of
galaxies would be
expected to rotate
about their centre of
mass much faster than
is determined from
gravity alone. The
detected components in
galaxies will cause
them to rotate
significantly faster
than predicted from
either Newtonian or
Relativistic gravity.
That statement can be
justified by
experimental evidence
(courtesy of Uncle Sam
whose work is much
appreciated at least
by this author) beyond
the mere detection of
more rapidly rotating
galaxies. Forget about
dark matter.<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">As for dark
energy, it is based
upon the observation
of apparently
anomalous type 1a
supernovae (SNe1a)
intensities. In order
to match the observed
SNe1a intensities to
my work I need our
galaxy to be in a
region of space with a
density of about
10^-24 kg/m^3. This is
about 1,000 times the
density required under
the Big Bang theory
for the universe to
exist in its current
form some 23.8 billion
years after the Big
Bang. But there are
many problems with
that figure.<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">The odds of
the universe having
this structure 13.8
billion years after
the Big Bang are about
1 : 10^60. (I doubt
that any Big Bang
proponent would risk
his/her money when
she/he had only 1 :
1000 chance of
winning. If they are,
I am prepared to wager
against as many as are
prepared to show their
faith in low odds.)
Yet they expect us to
believe the whole
universe exists
because of 1 : 10^60
odds and we are the
one universe in over
10^60 other universes
in the multiverse.
Talk about having lost
touch with reality.
Another feature is
that a "quick" (i.e.,
long and involved)
calculation will show
that the density of
the visible universe
is higher than ≈
10^-27 kg/m^3.
Thirdly, for an
expanding universe in
which there is only
light from up to 13.8
billion light years
distance, there are
far too many stars
visible in the Hubble
Extreme field images
(again, thanks Uncle
Sam). I am sure some
of you can think of
other observations as
well.<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">Going back to
dark energy. In order
to match the observed
SNe1a intensities, my
model requires a local
(< 10^8 LYs radius)
density of just over 1
x 10^-24 kg/m^3,
dropping down to a
background average of
≈ 8 x 10^-26 kg/m^3.
Or another effect I
haven't yet included.
Both of these figures
are much higher than
the "official" (i.e.
matches their theory)
value of ≈ 10^-27
kg/m^3. A brief look
at the stars in our
local region, ≈ 10^6
LYs radius, gives the
number of sun mass
stars, ≈ 200 x 10^9
for Milky Way, ≈ 300 x
10^9 Andromeda, and
others, gives a star
mass density
approaching 10^-25
kg/m^3. Here is where
astronomers are a
little vague. The mass
of galaxies is usually
quoted in terms of
number of stars of the
same mass as our sun
(luminous matter).
They also add to that
figure, the
observation that the
average galaxy has
about ten times as
much matter in a gas
and dust cloud
surrounding the galaxy
(non luminous matter)
as there is luminous
matter. Adding the
mass of the non
luminous matter to the
mass of the luminous
matter, if it isn't
already included, gets
me close to 10^-24
kg/m^3. I admit I am
not quite there. I am
not out by as much as
a factor of 24 times
the observed mass of
the universe and that
is without dark matter
to make the galaxies
rotate faster than
they should under
gravity alone.<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">There are
many other problems
associated with the
Big Bang theory. Just
think about the
additional mass a
galaxy must have to a
receding velocity that
gives a redshift of
10. Perhaps you know a
few more of them. <o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">In summary, I
believe the photon
model just forwarded
can be used with the
rotating photon or
toroidal
electromagnetic field
structure of matter
and Newtonian
mechanics give a
continuity between
quantum "weirdness"
and special and
general relativity.
Much of what is called
quantum "weirdness"
can be explained by
the structures of the
photon and the
particles composed of
rotating or toroidal
photons. Yes they need
refinement, but we
have to start
somewhere. As I said,
the object of my
communication was to
have a general
discussion on the
nature of light and
particles. <o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">I append my
paper on the electron
structure FYI. <o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">Regards,<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">Vivian
Robinson<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><Proposed
electron structure.pdf><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif; " class="">On
23/09/2016, at 1:08
AM, Hodge John <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline; " class="">jchodge@frontier.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif; " class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
If you no longer wish to receive communication
from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" class="">viv@universephysics.com</a><br class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-tick-v1.gif" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>