<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; "><font size="4">Richard and All,</font><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">In my referenced paper I outlined my position on the structure of the electron, namely that it was composed of a photon of the appropriate energy rotating twice in its wavelength. At the time I had not done a full literature search and later found other references to such an idea. The first was by Compton, reference below, in which he proposed an electron as a ring of charge in 1915. His suggested dimension was too high. I also found the reference by Williamson and van der Mark, 1997, and Qiu-Hong Hu (≈ 2005), <a href="https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0512/0512265.pdf">https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0512/0512265.pdf</a>. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Several others have since forwarded similar models, perhaps you know their chronological order. This not surprising because the standard model treatment of the electron is as a point particle with properties such as charge, mass, magnetic moment, spin and relativistic corrections attached in a Hamiltonian. It gets the right mathematical answer but doesn't give any physical description. I am sure you, like others, </font><span style="font-size: large; ">are</span> <span style="font-size: large; ">interested in determining the physical reason behind something. </span></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Qiu-Hong and others treated the electron as a closed loop as in a hubius coil or mobius strip. That is fine for a stationary electron. It does not allow an electron to move, other than by mathematically attaching the SRT corrections with motion.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Treating the ends of the photon as not making a permanent join allows an electron to spiral or corkscrew its way through space as it moves. The constant speed of light determines that it will automatically subject the electron to all the SRT corrections determined by Einstein and others. That motion describes a helix that the photon's axis follows as it spirals or corkscrews through space. Most important it both gives a physical reason for the SRT corrections and makes experimentally testable predictions of unknown electron properties. In particular it gives an equation of how the radius of the rotating photon will decrease with velocity, which decrease has been measured to be similar to said equation.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Richard, if your model acknowledges that the spiralling rotating photon gives rise to the SRT, we have significant agreement. If your model applies the SRT corrections to a hubius coil or mobius strip we have a significant difference. I am not prepared to accept that mathematical equations are imposed upon any situation without a physical reason for said mathematics. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Science is not about compromise or consensus. It is about reason. Things happen for a reason. Mathematics can be used to describe that reason. IMHO it is best to determine the physical reason for an event and then check the magnitude of the effect using mathematics. There have been many examples of mathematics successfully predicting events before the physics was established. Newton's gravitational theory and Einstein's SRT are two significant examples. There are many examples of mathematics without a physical explanation leading science "up the garden path". Black holes, treating particles as waves and string theory are some examples. They are so well entrenched in science that scientists wonder why fewer people are prepared to accept scientific explanations. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Swapping standard model mathematics that attaches properties to particles for no physical reason, for another approach that attaches properties to particles for no physical reason is not my idea of advancing science.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">You will see from my paper that I have suggested many ways in which, under the rotating photon model, a moving electron's photon axis spirals or corkscrews its way through space in a helical trajectory describes many known electron properties. In particular I suggest the electron's spiralling motion gives it all the SRT corrections. That paper also make a few testable predictions, </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">If you believe you can add further to a paper along those lines, particularly the dereivation of e and µB, it would be good. If you have an alternative derivation of the reason for the SRT corrections it would make interesting reading. Its value would be in making testable predictions. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">IMHO I, and to some extent Qiu-Hong, have provided the "skeleton" of the rotating photon model. Williamson and van der Mark (JW and MvdM) provided some "flesh" around it. There is still a lot more to be done. All contributions welcome. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">As I have said many times before, the value of a theory is in its ability to match observation and make testable predictions. If you wish to forward alternative ideas you need to make testable predictions of unknown properties. Pointing out mathematical calculations that match some known observations without anything that is different and can be tested is not an advance. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">On that note I would like to ask the participants in the debate about inertial mass "What is the discussion about?" IMHO </font><span style="font-size: large; ">mass is mass. </span><span style="font-size: large; ">As I mentioned below all masses, inertial, </span><span style="font-size: large; ">gravitational, rest, relativistic and invariant</span><font size="4"> are related. Knowing any one enables any other to be determined from knowledge of the gravitational field and velocity of the observer and observed. I agree with Einstein's concept that "..radiation (photons) convey inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies" (Einstein A, Ann. der Phys. </font><b style="font-size: large; ">18, </b><font size="4">p 639 *1906). I see no evidence to suggest he was wrong. It seems to me that a body composed of a rotating photon, or whatever other description is used, will have the same inertia as the original photon. I am happy to be corrected if there is an experimentally measurable difference. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Cheers,</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Vivian Robinson</font></div><div><br></div><div></div></body></html>