<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Oh
Richard,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>I really do
wonder sometimes about your lines of reasoning.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>And ‘disconfirm’ ?? – I didn’t even know
that was a word!<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> P</SPAN>oor old Occam
must be spinning in his grave!<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>What
with ‘disprove’, ‘refute’, ‘rebut’ – ‘disconfirm’ must surely be a case of
“multiplying entities (words) beyond necessity”.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>On a
slightly different point: in polite conversation it’s generally considered
courteous for two parties to alternate in asking questions and responding to the
other’s questions; if one just follows the other’s answers with yet more
questions it can seem a bit more like an interrogation than a discussion.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Having (as you noted) offered quite a
bit of info in reply to your critique of my model, I was hopeful that you would
in turn respond to my simple question; instead you’ve chosen not to reply to
that but rather asked yet more questions of your own.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Something in me wonders if that’s an
avoidance strategy – but I’m sure you do in fact have a simple explanation to
offer with regard to your curious concept of a ‘charged
photon’.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Since your
two questions are fairly easy to answer, I’ll do that now in the hope that you
will respond in like manner by making everything clear about this elusive
‘charged photon’, in a way that fits with existing
knowledge.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>[More
seriously, Richard: I had reason a while ago to caution you about grossly
untrue and potentially libellous comments that you posted regarding content of
my website; now I find you attributing to me statements that are precisely the
reverse of what I've actually said, and inviting others to find fault with my
work on the strength of that misinformation; I feel you might be wise to check
your facts more carefully before hurling such brickbats, they may rebound with
consequences that you might not wish.]</SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>You’ve asked
about the wavelength of the helically-moving photon in my electron model – at
least, I think you have.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>My
uncertainty is caused by the fact that you appear to be switching between two
different things as if they’re one and the same thing.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Those two things are the electromagnetic
wave frequency of the photon that forms the electron and the periodicity of the
cycle pattern of that photon around its helical path.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In this you appear to be dealing with
the de Broglie Clock Paradox by completely ignoring it.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>As you’ve
observed, my photon’s constant-radius helical trajectory has a cycle frequency
that decreases as the photon’s speed increases, and so also its energy.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>As photon energy increases by factor
gamma then cycle frequency decreases by factor 1/gamma.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This is fully in line with experimental
evidence and also fully to be expected: a clock moving with the electron would
show that helical trajectory completing one full cycle in precisely the same
time as would be shown by a static clock for an electron at rest.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This is known as ‘time dilation’,
proposed by Einstein and demonstrated by various experimental observations,
notably that by Gouan</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRomanPSMT; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN"
lang=EN-GB>è</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>re, Catillon
et al in respect of electrons; another elementary particle with no substructure,
the muon, has also been shown to demonstrate so-called ‘relativistic’ time
dilation in terms of its decay rate and so also, one must infer, in terms of the
effect of motion on its underlying structure.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>[My model of particle structure proposes
that this is in fact the <I>reason</I> for such time dilation: energy takes
longer for a complete cycle through/around a particle; since it must necessarily
be energy that propagates effects of time, it naturally follows that time will
propagate more slowly with regard to a moving particle.]<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Observation and theory match
perfectly.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>In respect
of a rather different matter, the frequency of the formative photon for an
electron, I agree with you again that the frequency of that photon increases by
factor gamma in accordance with the speed of linear motion of the photon.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>So, without question – again I agree
with you 100% – the ‘frequency’ of the formative photon wave, measured against
the increased (‘time-dilated’ by factor gamma) duration of each complete cycle
of the helical path of that photon, will indeed be increased by factor
gamma^2.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This again is fully in
line with existing theory, and such experimental evidence as is available: time
dilation is an established fact, even for individual particles without
substructure, so each complete helical cycle will take longer by a factor gamma;
frequency of the formative wave, as evidenced by experimental evidence on energy
content and also by consideration of the ‘relativistic’ energy-momentum
relation, is indeed increased by factor gamma for a moving particle; simple
multiplication gives the inevitable result that we both agree applies in my
model.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>What baffles
me is why exactly you think that this self-evident fact is so unspeakable
(“doesn’t make sense”) – not only that, but you invite others to think
likewise.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">This may be because you appear to turn this
relationship on its head (without explanation) and claim that I’m proposing N =
gamma^2 helical turns per wavelength *; this is clearly incorrect, what I’m
actually proposing is gamma^2 wavelengths of the formative photon per (double)
helical turn – exactly the opposite of your claim</B> (and fully in line with
theory and experimental evidence, as I’ve shown above).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I can’t help feeling that you’ve been
bamboozled by your fixation with SR into believing that the two are one and the
same thing – a feat that takes a pretty extreme level of belief in something for
which, as far as I know, NO experimental evidence is available (i.e. fixed
relationship of photon wavelength to helical cycle).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>[Being charitable, it appears that
you’ve totally befuddled yourself over turns/wavelengths and wavelengths/turns –
not a sign of clear thinking.]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>[* Your
quote: “</SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-GB>the number N of helical turns per wavelength …
your N=gamma^2 result doesn’t make physical sense</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>“.]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>I’d be most
interested to hear how you square the circle of increasing wave frequency and
decreasing helical cycle frequency, in line with theory and experiment, whilst
the two remain synchronised…<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>As to the
second of your questions below: I thought I’d already explained this, it seems I
need to do so again.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I hope we’re
agreed that spin-1 is applicable for circularly polarised photons, elliptically
polarised photons have a lesser degree of spin (dependent on eccentricity),
plane polarised waves have zero spin.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Even Wikipedia, with all its failings, appears to have this one
right.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>There’s some
agreement, too, that electric charge is an artefact of cyclic
circularly-polarised electromagnetic wave motion.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Since any increase in energy of a
particle such as an electron must be the consequence of a photon (real or
virtual) being transferred from some other entity, it seems likely that this
transfer is in the form of a plane polarised photon (otherwise the electron’s
electric charge might arguably be increased or decreased).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>A plane polarised photon combining with
the static electron’s formative photon would have the effect of ‘diluting’ the
degree of circular polarisation of the latter; this would in turn have the
effect of reducing the spin of the electron’s formative photon (now higher
frequency, but elliptical – frequency doesn’t affect photon spin, ellipticity
does).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>So it is
that, in my model, the spin of the formative photon reduces as the linearity of
the photon’s path increases – so for the “very large gamma” that you refer to,
the spin of the formative photon tends to zero and so would not add anything to
the constant spin-1/2 that my constant-radius model gives for an
electron.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>[As a
footnote: I note that you’ve been soliciting support from others for your model,
including Hodge; no disrespect to Hodge, but since as I understand it your model
rests fundamentally on a wave-form photon, I’m not sure that agreement from one
who rejects the very idea of a photon being wavelike would help your
cause.]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Over to you
– I’m really keen to hear your rationale for this charged photon, with
experimental evidence.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Best,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Grahame<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=richgauthier@gmail.com href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard
Gauthier</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=grahame@starweave.com
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:09
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: On particle radius &
spin</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Graham,</DIV>
<DIV> A small typo correction in my email. The factor of 1/2 (helical
turns per photon wavelength) in my email should be a factor of 2 helical turns
per photon wavelength. In the resting electron the photon makes 2 circular
loops per Compton wavelength, producing the zitterbewegung frequency
fz=2mc^2/h. The ratio of 2 helical turns per photon wavelength remains in my
relativistic electron model. This does not affect the main argument in the
email.</DIV>
<DIV> Richard</DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Jan 18, 2017, at 6:34 PM, Richard Gauthier <<A
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</A>>
wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV>Hi Grahame (and others)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Thanks for the detailed critique of my electron model and
further information on your model. It’s a lot to reply to so first I’ll
start with one question about your electron model.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Your electron model still doesn’t explicitly contain the
relationship Lwavelength = h/(gamma mc) for the wavelength of your helically
circulating photon, derived from hf= hc/Lwavelength = gamma m c^2 . Your
photon’s constant-radius helical trajectory has a continuously DECREASING
helically turning frequency as the energy of the electron increases. Your
model's helical turning frequency decreases as 1/gamma with increasing
electron energy, while its turning period T increases directly proportional
to gamma. This implies that the length of one complete helical turn in your
relativistic model is Lturn = gamma Lcompton). This means that with
increasing gamma for your electron model, more and more of your
helically moving photon's wavelengths of value Lwavelength = h/(gamma mc) =
Lcompton/gamma are included on a single helical turn of length Lturn = gamma
Lcompton of your helically moving photon. The number N of wavelengths per
helical turn in your model moving with relativistic speed given by gamma can
be seen easily to be N= Lturn/Lwavelength = (gamma Lcompton)/
(Lcompton/gamma) = gamma^2 . So if two people observe your electron model go
by with two different high energies (say gamma = 10 and gamma = 100, the
person observing the gamma=10 electron go by will count 10^2 = 100 photon
wavelengths per helical turn of your photon while the second person,
observing the gamma = 100 electron go by, will count 100^2 = 10,000
photon wavelengths per helical turn of your model (not counting the factor
of 1/2 in helical turns per photon wavelength due to zitterbewegung
double-looping). In my spin-1/2 charged photon model, the number N of
helical turns per wavelength is INDEPENDENT of gamma and always equals 1/2
helical turn per photon wavelength (including the zitterbewegung
double-looping factor.) To me (and perhaps to others?) your N=gamma^2 result
doesn’t make physical sense so I want to confirm with you that this result
is in fact implied by your model. This result alone could disconfirm your
model if it doesn’t make physical sense. Also in your model I still don’t
see why the constant spin 1/2 of the orbital motion of the photon would not
for very large gamma simply add to the intrinsic spin of the photon (either
spin 1 or spin 1/2), whose spin vector is directed essentially
longitudinally like that of the spin 1/2 orbital motion, to give a total
relativistic electron-model spin 1 1/2 or spin 1 respectively . Please let
me know. Thanks.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Richard</DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Jan 18, 2017, at 7:29 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</A>>
wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt" lang=EN-GB>Hi
Richard (et al.),<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt" lang=EN-GB>I
feel I need to address your reference to my constant-radius electron model
with your inference as to its apparently increasing spin angular momentum
with increasing velocity.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>There is actually no
paradox there – in fact a clue as to the resolution of this issue is
hidden in your own candidate photon.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>First I’d like to query that electron model of yours, based as
you say on a “spin-1/2 charged photon”.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>I have no problem with the
spin-1/2 bit: as we know, the spin-1 (+ or -) characteristic of a photon
is a consequence of its own circular polarisation, clockwise or
anticlockwise.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>So it follows that a plane
polarised photon, being an equal combination of + & -
circularly-polarised elements, will not exhibit any such spin; likewise an
elliptically polarised photon, consisting of unequal parts of + & -
polarisation, will somewhere between 0 and +/-1, depending on its
eccentricity.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>So spin-1/2 is a distinct
possibility for a photon.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt" lang=EN-GB>I’m
not clear, though, on what’s meant by a “charged photon”.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>I don’t know of any
entities arising from Maxwell’s equations that fit that
term.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Indeed, it’s increasingly
apparent that the phenomenon referred to as ‘static charge’ is itself an
artefact arising from the electromagnetic fields that form a ‘charged’
particle.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>I fully agree with John W
& Martin vdM on this* – more than that, I believe it would be pretty
well impossible to explain experimental findings showing the wavelike
nature of an electron without this being the case.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>[* Also that this
formative photon must necessarily be circularly
polarised.]<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt" lang=EN-GB>If
one talks of a ‘charged photon’, presumably the photon itself is still an
electromagnetic construct?<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>In which case we have an
electromagnetic construct with an electric charge attached to it (?) – two
quite different electromagnetic constructs combined within the same entity
(if I’ve misunderstood this completely, please put me
right).<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>In this case, what’s the
mechanism that persuades that charge to follow the interference-guided
waveform to its destination in the Davisson/Germer
experiment?<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>I just can’t see how it
would work, on a number of fronts. Surel that 'charge' must itself
be wave-lie - so it's just part of the photon
wave?<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt" lang=EN-GB>The
other thing that’s quite puzzling is: when photons (possibly virtual) are
added into the electron to accelerate it, do they have to be these
‘charged photons’ as well?<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>If so, where do they come
from?<SPAN> <SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>If
not, why not? How do 'non-charged' photons combine with a 'charged'
photon to increase its frequency?<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt" lang=EN-GB>With
regard to my own model, as you say it of course conforms with the
energy-momentum relation.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>It also creates the
phenomenon experienced as ‘electric charge’ as an artefact of the
time-varying electromagnetic field effects of its formative
photon.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Those same effects,
internally to the electron, interfere with one another (non-linearly, of
course – so not coherent superposition) to create curvature in the photon
path which, once initiated, is self-perpetuating; hence the ‘confinement’
of the photon.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt" lang=EN-GB>It’s
clear that the linear momentum of the cyclic photon, completing one
wavelength in a double-loop (as per zitterbewegung), gives the static
electron an angular momentum equivalent to spin-1/2.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>The intrinsic spin of the
photon itself (being circularly polarised) will balance itself out over
one cycle, contributing no additional spin to the
electron.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Additional energy, leading
to motion of the electron, will be plane polarised* – this is apparent
from other considerations, notably in relation to gravitational effects
(which fit very well with this model as extended electromagnetic effects
of ‘massive’ objects), as well as non-increasing
charge.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt" lang=EN-GB>[*
This isn’t in any way a limitation on the energies that might accelerate
an electron; it’s anticipated that the structure of any elementary
particle would be self-regulated by interference effects that would
mediate the energy exchange between particles – both particles generally
obeying matching constraints.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Thus energy exchanges
would be in the form of plane polarised waves.]<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt" lang=EN-GB>This
leads to a formative photon for an electron that becomes progressively
more elliptical in its polarisation as the electron increases its
speed.<SPAN> <SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>It
should be apparent that the increasing linear component of the formative
photon itself thus has a decreasing degree of angular
momentum.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>From this it should in
turn be apparent that: (a) the formative photon should asymptotically
approach plane polarisation as the speed of the electron approaches c (and
the photon path approaches the unattainable ‘flatline’ state); (b) the
decreasing degree of circular polarisation will match the decreasing
proportion of that photon acting cyclically, as opposed to linearly – so
maintaining the balance between the reducing spin angular momentum of that
photon and the compensating cyclical component of photon motion; (c) the
linear momentum of the photon will contribute an unvarying element of
angular momentum (at constant radius) to the electron (translating
into a constant spin-1/2, regardless of electron speed), as already
noted.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt" lang=EN-GB>As
electron speed approaches arbitrarily close to c, its formative photon
approaches arbitrarily close to a flatlining plane polarised form – whilst
still maintaining a helical constant-radius path over an arbitrarily long
cycle interval, matched by an arbitrarily high frequency such that the two
combine to give a cyclic momentum component which gives a constant
spin-1/2 at all electron speeds.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt" lang=EN-GB>In
contrast to all other models seen, this proposed electron structure
requires absolutely no add-ons or modifications to known features of a
photon; the proposal of self-interference as a mechanism for ‘confinement’
of the looping photon seems virtually axiomatic, given the well-verified
phenomenon of pair production from two linear photons with no apparent
injection of any additional props.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Not least, this model
with<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> its invariant loop
radius for its formative photon offers a comprehensive detailed
explanation for ALL phenomena grouped under the heading of Special
Relativity (including, as Albrecht has observed, but not just, time
dilation in accordance with Lorentz factor).<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt" lang=EN-GB>More
than this, it offers a cogent and robust rationale for the phenomenon
referred to as ‘gravitation’, including a full explanation for the highly
useful concept of ‘curved spacetime’ as a tool for calculating
trajectories through areas of space subject to influences from massive
bodies in motion.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Not least, it offers a
fully coherent rationale for the phenomenon that we know as ‘time’, in a
formulation that fits precisely with all known experimental and other
empirical findings. To cover ALL these bases without having to
introduce ANY new concepts would, I believe, warm the heart of William of
Ockham.</SPAN></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </P>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt" lang=EN-GB>Just
to push the boat out a little further, this model also gives a sensible
explanation of 'quantum indeterminacy' - without either of the antiquated
myths of exponentially-increasing alternative universes OR 'God playing
dice' (I'm with Einstein on the latter of these).</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>Grahame</SPAN></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </P>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB>========</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt"
lang=EN-GB><O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 10pt arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">-----
Original Message -----<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(228,228,228)"><B>From:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A title=richgauthier@gmail.com
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</A></DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light
and Particles - General Discussion</A></DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Monday,
January 16, 2017 2:27 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Re:
[General] Reply to Chip on particle radius & spin</DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">Hello
Chip, Grahame, Vivian, John W, Alex, Hodge and others,</DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
Alex, congratulations on your latest “bag model” article on arXiv.
Do you have any suggestions on how we can get on arXiv? Does your bag
model’s radius change by increasing the model's speed relativistically?
Someone in an<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="http://academia.edu/">Academia.edu</A><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>article discussion group I am in
asked me if I had heard of your work. I was pleased to say “yes”.</DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
The below diagram (figure 1 in my SPIE article at<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength">https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength</A><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>) represents the relationships
among momentum, energy and velocity for the relativistic spin-1/2 charged
photon model of the electron. The figure also applies to some other
helical photon-like object models of the relativistic electron because the
total photon-like object’s momentum P=gamma mc is the hypotenuse of a
momentum triangle where p=gamma mv is the longitudinal component of the
photon-like object's momentum (and equals the the momentum of the
relativistic electron being modeled), while mc is the transverse component
of the photon-like object’s total momentum P=gamma mc, as shown by the
pythagorean formula P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2 . Since P=E/c for the
photon-like object, where the energy of the helically-moving
photon-like object is E=gamma mc^2 , the 90-degree momentum triangle
relating P, p and mc corresponds to the relativistic energy-momentum
equation for an electron: E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 as is evident if you
just substitute P=E/c into the momentum triangle formula P^2 = p^2 +
(mc)^2 .</DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
If the above momentum triangle relationship is agreed for all our
helical models of the relativistic electron , the only quantitative
difference among Graham’s, Vivian’s, Chip’s and my helical photon models
in this regard is the helical radius R's dependence on gamma, compared to
the resting electron’s trajectory radius Ro=hbar/2mc (shown by the oval’s
transverse radius at the left end of the figure). My spin-1/2
charged photon model predicts that the helical radius R is given by
R=Ro/gamma^2 = hbar/(2mc gamma^2) as shown in the figure, (which
equals 1/2 in this diagram where the value used for gamma in the diagram
is gamma = sqrt(2) = 1.414 so also v= c/sqrt(2) = 0.707c in the
diagram. The value of theta in the figure is therefore 45 degrees.
Grahame’s electron model predicts that R=Ro for all values of gamma.
Vivian predicts that R=Ro/gamma which would equal 0.707 Ro in this
example. I’m not sure what Chip’s model predicts for the radius of
the helically trajectory (I think it is R=Ro/gamma) which however is not
necessarily the same as the radius of the helically moving photon-like
object itself. Chip, Vivian and I seem to agree that the photon radius
decreases as R=Ro/gamma for highly relativistic values of gamma, while
Grahame doesn’t as far as I know have a prediction for the radius of a
photon-like object (as distinct for his prediction of the constant radius
of the trajectory of the photon-like object of Ro for all values of
gamma. </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
In Graham’s electron model, the orbital value alone for the angular
momentum is always mc x Ro = hbar/2 even at highly relativistic
velocities. Any additional angular momentum such as spin-1 or even
spin-1/2 of the helically-moving photon would add a component of this spin
at highly relativistic velocities to this orbital angular momentum value
of hbar/2, giving a total z-component of spin greater than hbar/2 at
highly relativistic velocities, which is contrary to experiment. Chip also
doesn’t seem to take into account the spin of the photon-like object
itself in his calculation of the total spin of his relativistic model of
the photon as the electron’s momentum increases, which forces him to
decrease the radius of his photon model as Ro/gamma (as I understand him)
to keep the total spin of his electron model equal to hbar/2. But it is
clear from the diagram that the transverse momentum component of the
circulating photon-like object remains mc even at highly relativistic
electron values, so his calculated value of orbital spin should actually
decrease if his R decreases with increasing gamma.</DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
I would also like to know if John W agrees with the momentum right
triangle relations here for a relativistic electron model. I believe that
he thinks that the radius of a photon decreases as 1/gamma from various
energy considerations. And Hodge? John M?</DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
Richard</DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR
class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<HR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR
class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 13.5pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Figure 1.
Velocity, momentum and energy relationships for the charged photon model
moving along its helical trajectory. The velocity and
momentum </SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 13.5pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">vectors of the
charged photon and its components related to the electron being modeled
are indicated.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><BR></DIV><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>