<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" 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><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Richard (et al.),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I thoroughly agree with everything
you've said in your first three paras below, it's a helpful summary of the
state of play.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>As I'm sure you'll know, though, I
equally thoroughly disagree with your final two paras. Just as an example:
"<FONT color=#000000 size=3 face="Times New Roman">Vivian and Grahame leave out
from their electron models consideration of the wavelength lambda=h/(gamma mc)
of the circulating charged photon-like object</FONT>"; I can't speak for Vivian,
but this is most assuredly not true in my case; you'll see from my latest
communication (as well as earlier ones) that I consider this a crucial element
of the electron model - ANY electron model. For my part I have pointed out
a clear inconsistency (as I see it) in your model, which appears to claim to
deliver synchronised (double-)helical circuits and photon wavelengths despite
the fact that the former is DEcreased in frequency by time dilation and the
latter is INcreased in frequency by energy consideration (as per your comment
that I've quoted above).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I also still await (with bated
breath) your explanation, with supporting experimental evidence, of the concept
of a "charged photon". If you could add to that your explanation of how
you resolve the apparent paradox I've just highlighted, I'll be doubly
delighted.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=richgauthier@gmail.com href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard
Gauthier</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <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> Sunday, January 22, 2017 1:38 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] light and particles group</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hello Chandra and others,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Thank your for emphasizing the importance of our
constructively critiquing each others' ideas and models, and building on each
others’ ideas and proposals where possible. I think we all are looking for the
most reasonable particle-with-mass models, as ultimately determined by which
models best stand up to experimental verification or falsification. But the
models need to be internally consistent mathematically as well. Photon-like
objects may not be the ultimate constituents of particles with mass, because a
photon may be composed of a more fundamental entity such as the proposed
transluminal energy quantum (TEQ) or some other energy-momentum-spin-related
sub-quantum entity.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> I feel like this discussion group is moving towards a
resolution of a description of the dependence on gamma of the radius of the
trajectory of a photon-like particle composing a relativistic electron (as
opposed to the the dependence on gamma of the effective radius of the
photon-like object itself, which is a separate issue). The participants in this
discussion group who have electron models to which this question is relevant are
John W, Grahame, Vivian, Alex, Chip and myself and perhaps John M.
Albrecht’s electron model is not composed of a circulating photon-like object
and is in a class by itself (although the 2 massless particles in his electron
model move at light speed in a circle of circumference Lcompton = h/mc ,
so there are similarities with his model and the other electron models.
All of these electron models contain light speed circular motion for a resting
electron, so this seems to be the common foundation of this approach to
describing the energy structure of fundamental particles with mass such as the
electron.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> The persons who seem closest to resolving this issue as a
result of recent discussions here are Vivian, Grahame, Chip and myself. Graham
has proposed that for a relativistic electron model the photon-like
object’s helical trajectory is independent of gamma. Vivian has proposed that
this helical trajectory’s radius decreases as 1/gamma, and in my model the
trajectory’s radius decreases as 1/gamma^2. Chip has not yet clearly stated his
preference for a gamma dependence in his model, though I think he is leaning
towards a 1/gamma dependence, so I hope he will weigh in on thus point. Inputs
from John W, Alex and John D on this point will be helpful. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Of course, all three of these proposals for the possible gamma
dependence of the radius of the photon-like object’s helical trajectory could be
wrong experimentally. But it is logically implausible that all three of them, or
even two out of three of them, can be experimentally correct since they seem
mutually contradictory. I have pointed out that both Vivian and Grahame leave
out from their electron models consideration of the wavelength lambda=h/(gamma
mc) of the circulating charged photon-like object found from the relationship hf
= hc/lambda = gamma mc^2, which is produced by equating the energy
E=hf=hc/lambda of the helically circulating photon-like object with the energy
E=gamma mc^2 of a relativistic electron. (De Broglie used this relationship
hf=gamma mc^2 in deriving the de Broglie wavelength for a relativistic electron,
but he did not conceive of the electron as composed of a circulating photon-like
object.) If Vivian and Grahame both accept that this photon wavelength
lambda=h/(gamma mc) should be included in their electron models, this will
require some adjustment in their models which could alter their predictions of
the dependence of their trajectory radius on gamma, and could allow the 4 of us
to come to a common conclusion on this significant point for modeling the
electron. This would not be an insignificant result in my opinion, given the
range of ideas associated other aspects of these electron models. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> The advantage to each electron model here of including the
photon-like object’s wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) is that it is very easy to
derive the de Broglie wavelength from this wavelength using the fact that the
forward angle theta of all three helical trajectories above is given by
cos(theta) = v/c . The helically circulating photon-like object's wave vector K
is given by K = 2pi/lambda = 2pi/(h/gamma mc) = (gamma
mc)/hbar . The longitudinal component of K along the helical axis (corresponding
to the modeled electron’s velocity direction) is given by k = K cos (theta) =
(gamma mc)/hbar x v/c = gamma mv/hbar . This k corresponds to the
wavelength Lambda = 2pi/k = 2pi/(gamma mv/hbar) = 2pi x hbar/(gamma mv) =
h/(gamma mv) = Ldebroglie which is the relativistic de Broglie wavelength.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Richard </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>