<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Dear John,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>this can be answered, and it is not too difficult. Look:</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Photons do not have a rest mass, true. But they are never at
rest. The fact that they have no rest mass is an extrapolation
from real existing photons which have some energy (and so mass) to
(only theoretically assumed) photons without energy.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>And if the photon would be at rest (and so have m = 0) then it
would not transfer any momentum. Not so surprising!<br>
<br>
</p>
<p>It is also simple to show that the angular momentum (spin) is a
constant independent from the actual energy of the photon. That
can be classically deduced. Also this fact is not in conflict with
my statement. Do you want to see it calculated?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Regards, Albrecht</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 11.10.2016 um 05:50 schrieb John
Williamson:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9207051FB@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">Dear Albrecht,<br>
<br>
With the greatest respect, this view is far too simple and you
are simply wrong.<br>
<br>
Proof: photons are (rest) massless and yet they transfer
momentum.<br>
<br>
Regards, John.<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF761302"><font
face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b>
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Albrecht Giese [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 10, 2016 8:18 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Richard Gauthier; Nature of Light and Particles
- General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Proposed photon wave
functions<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<p>Hello Richard,</p>
<p>you are right that inertia and momentum are related to
each other. The relation is that inertia is the cause of
momentum, without inertia in our world there would be no
momentum in our world.</p>
<p>Mathematically spoken: momentum = mass *
vector_of_motion. The vector_of motion is a vector, so the
product "momentum" is a vector. An explanation of momentum
needs the explanation of mass as a precondition. Not the
other way around.</p>
<p>Inertial mass can in fact be explained if one accepts
that an extended object necessarily has inertia. And as
the electron has to be extended (in order to have angular
momentum and magnetic moment) it has inertial mass just
from this reason. And I like to repeat: the assumption
that an extended object has inertia is not only an idea
but can be deduced quantitatively with precise results
without the use of any free parameters which had to be
adjusted.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 09.10.2016 um 03:00 schrieb
Richard Gauthier:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht, Vivian and all,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Albrecht: Of course, if you say that an
apple is essentially the same as an orange (despite
their different properties) then you can also say that
inertial mass is essentially the same as momentum
(despite their different properties). But inertial mass
is not the same as momentum, and apples are not the same
as oranges. Inertial mass is a scalar quantity and
momentum is a vector quantity, which is fundamentally
different. They also have different physical units. My
point is that inertial mass is NOT the same as momentum
although they are related. A linearly moving photon has
inertial mass hf/c^2 (while having no rest mass) as well
as external momentum hf/c. A resting electron has
inertial mass m= Eo/c^2 while having no (or minimal)
external momentum. In circulating-photon electron models
(which your electron model is not), the circulating
photon also has inertial mass m=Eo/c^2=hf/c^2 of its
circulating photon, and this inertial mass m of a
resting electron is called the rest mass m of the
electron, or simply the mass m of the electron. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Vivian: I think you are agreeing with
Albrecht too quickly. Physicists have been trying hard
to understand the nature of inertia since Newton failed
to. Mach tried and failed. Several modern physicists
such as Einstein, Woodward and Haisch et al have also
tried unsuccessfully to explain the nature of inertial
mass (the fact that the rest energy stored in a mass m
is Eo=mc^2 is NOT in itself an explanation for inertial
mass). The Higgs Field (as I understand it) also doesn’t
explain inertial mass, although it may explain the
origin of a particle's invariant mass as is claimed.
Anyway, I won’t accept any explanation from you about
particles and inertia as long as you continue to insist
that the relativistic kinetic energy of a particle is KE
= pc = gamma mv c (instead of the well-known
experimentally established formula KE = (gamma - 1) mc^2
) as you claim on p 13 in your article “A proposal for
the structure and properties of the electron”
(attached).</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader" target="_blank"></fieldset>
<br>
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Vivian
Robinson <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au" class=""
target="_blank">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word">Richard,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Cheers,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Vivian </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">On 07/10/2016, at 7:39 AM,
Albrecht Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class=""
target="_blank">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<p class="">Richard,</p>
<p class="">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 class="">Albrecht <br class="">
</p>
<p class="">(And you may have a look at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass"
target="_blank">
www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a> ) <br
class="">
</p>
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.10.2016
um 15:12 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<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="" target="_blank">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 class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"
target="_blank"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<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="" target="_blank">viv@universephysics.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="word-wrap:break-word">John,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class=""
style="font-size:14px">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 class=""
style="font-size:12px">i</span>,
given by F = m<span class=""
style="font-size:12px">i</span>.a.
Gravitational mass m<span
class=""
style="font-size:12px">g</span>
is different by potential
energy (PE) divided by c
squared (m<span class=""
style="font-size:12px">g</span>
= m<span class=""
style="font-size:12px">i</span>
- PE/c^2). Rest mass m<span
class=""
style="font-size:12px">r</span>
is m<span class=""
style="font-size:12px">i</span>
measured at velocity = 0
with respect to m<span
class=""
style="font-size:12px">i</span>.
Relativistic mass m</span><span
class=""
style="font-size:12px">rel</span><span
class=""
style="font-size:14px"> 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
class=""
style="font-size:large"> </span><span
class=""
style="font-size:large">wrt</span><span
class=""
style="font-size:large"> an
observer, </span><span
class=""
style="font-size:large">gravitational
field and velocity. In
practice all m<span class=""
style="font-size:12px">i</span>,
m<span class=""
style="font-size:12px">g</span>
and m<span class=""
style="font-size:12px">r</span>
will be measured the same
within experimental error,
essentially making them
invariant. </span></div>
<div class=""><span class=""
style="font-size:large"><br
class="">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span class=""
style="font-size:large">IMHO,
you are quite correct about
aspects of the standard
model. There are some very
serious problems.</span></div>
<div class=""><span class=""
style="font-size:large"><br
class="">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span class=""
style="font-size:large">Cheers,</span></div>
<div class=""><span class=""
style="font-size:large"><br
class="">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span class=""
style="font-size:large">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="" target="_blank">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"
class="">
<div class=""
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-indent:0px;
text-transform:none;
white-space:normal;
widows:2;
word-spacing:0px"
lang="EN-GB">
<div
class="WordSection1"
style="">
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)">Viv:</span></div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)"> </span></div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)">Good stuff. I empathize totally.</span></div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)"> </span></div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)">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/"
class=""
style="color:purple;
text-decoration:underline" target="_blank"><span class=""
style="color:rgb(0,0,153)">Einstein’s
E=mc² paper</span></a>,
where the last
line reads thus:</span></div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)"> </span></div>
<div class="" style=""><i
class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)" lang="EN">“If the theory corresponds to the facts,
radiation
conveys inertia
between the
emitting and
absorbing
bodies”.</span></i><i
class=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)"></span></i></div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)"> </span></div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)">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. </span></div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)"> </span></div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)">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.</span></div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)"> </span></div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)">Regards</span></div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:rgb(0,0,153)">JohnD</span></div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:11pt;
font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="border-style:solid
none none;
border-top-width:1pt;
border-top-color:rgb(225,225,225); padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<div class=""
style="margin:0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size:12pt;
font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<b class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:11pt;
font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
class=""
style="font-size:11pt;
font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General
[<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general" target="_blank">mailto:general</a>-<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class=""
target="_blank">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=""
target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br
class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Proposed photon wave
functions</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="" style=""> </div>
<div class="" style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt">Rear
Richard and
others,</span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt">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.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt">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.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt">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. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt">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. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt">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. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt">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. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt">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. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt">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.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt">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. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt">Chandra,
is that the kind
of paper you
would like
presented at
your next SPIE
conference? It
will be more
advanced by
then. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt">Cheers,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt">Vivian
Robinson</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">On
29/09/2016, at
11:25 PM,
Richard
Gauthier <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class=""
style="color:purple;
text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
<div class=""
style="margin:0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size:12pt;
font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote
class=""
style="margin-top:5pt;
margin-bottom:5pt">
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">Hello
Vivian, Chip
and others,</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:'Times New
Roman',serif">
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"
class=""
style="color:purple;
text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">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"
class=""
style="color:purple;
text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/4429837/FTL_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron</a> . </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:'Times New
Roman',serif">
Richard</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:12pt; font-family:'Times New
Roman',serif">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""
style=""><Microvita
A New Approach
to Matter Life
and
Health.pdf></div>
<div class=""
style=""><FTL
Quantum Models
of the Photon
and the
Electron.pdf></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
<div class="">
<blockquote
class=""
style="margin-top:5pt;
margin-bottom:5pt">
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">On
Sep 24, 2016,
at 8:34 AM,
Richard
Gauthier <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class=""
style="color:purple;
text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">Hello
Vivian,</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">
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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">
Richard</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote
class=""
style="margin-top:5pt;
margin-bottom:5pt">
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">On
Sep 22, 2016,
at 8:55 PM,
Vivian
Robinson <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" class=""
style="color:purple;
text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">viv@universephysics.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">Hodge,</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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.</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">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. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">I
append my
paper on the
electron
structure
FYI. </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">Regards,</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">Vivian
Robinson</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""
style=""><Proposed
electron
structure.pdf></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="">On
23/09/2016, at
1:08 AM, Hodge
John <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" class="" style="color:purple;
text-decoration:underline"
target="_blank">jchodge@frontier.com</a>> wrote:</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""
style=""> </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class=""
style=""> </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="" target="_blank">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=""
target="_blank">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="" target="_blank">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="" target="_blank">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 class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"
target="_blank"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre 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" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"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 class="">
<br class="">
<table class="" style="border-top:1px
solid #D3D4DE">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="width:55px;
padding-top:18px"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
class="" target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-tick-v1.gif"
class="" style="width:46px;
height:29px" height="29"
width="46"></a></td>
<td class="" style="width:470px;
padding-top:17px; color:#41424e;
font-size:13px;
font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;
line-height:18px">
Virenfrei. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
class="" style="color:#4453ea"
target="_blank">
www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</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@etpsemra.com.au" class=""
target="_blank">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a><br
class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
class="" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br
class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
</a><br class="">
</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=""
target="_blank">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="" target="_blank">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="">
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #D3D4DE">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:55px; padding-top:18px"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-tick-v1.gif"
style="width:46px; height:29px" height="29"
width="46"></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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
style="color:#4453ea" target="_blank">
www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<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>
</table>
</body>
</html>