<!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><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Richard,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I really feel that as a scientist you
should be aware of the clear distinction between 'wonder' and 'assert' - whether
used in a scientific discussion or in a courtroom (the two contexts are actually
quite similar, both require more rigor than you appear willing to apply).
You most certainly were NOT 'wondering' when you categorically stated - wrongly
- in your post to the group received 5th July: "<FONT color=#000000
size=3 face="Times New Roman">You have such a strong belief in the correctness
of your own model of physical reality derived from spun-light models of
particles that you offer a series of online classes to teach it to others for a
fee.</FONT>" If you don't consider this assertion, which is an outright
untruth, a 'brickbat' then I'm slightly at a loss to know what you would
consider you'd have to say to justify that term.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Also, I consider your 'sincere
apology' to be rather hollow when it's followed in the next sentence by the
insinuation that I've been nicking your work. This is (a) patently
ludicrous when 'your work' consists in this case of the increase in energy
by factor gamma in a moving electron - a fundamental aspect of photon energy and
of the energy-momentum relation used by ALL in this field; (b) yet another
reversal of the facts, since you yourself purchased a copy of my book 'Tapestry
of Light', almost nine years ago - which on pp59-65 clearly explains the
increase in energy required for increasing speed of a particle, illustrated
graphically with a series of right-angled triangles for increasing speeds
showing even for the non-technical the Pythagorean relationship between speed
and energy that you suggest I appropriated from you (You chose not to study
my book published that same year giving the detailed math behind this view
of material particles). So your claim that "<FONT color=#000000 size=3
face="Times New Roman">you know where and I don't</FONT>", referring to my use
of that relationship, is also untrue.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[If we need to go further back than
that, almost 13 years ago my model, including this detail, was
published by the Scientific & Medical Network on their website, and
reproduced in the Italian periodical 'Scienza e Conoscenza' in October
2004.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I wholeheartedly agree that part of
the purpose of this forum is to critique the work of others -
constructively. I emphasise that last word because I don't feel that
erroneous (mischievous?) adverse comments on the work of others fit that
description. I feel also that, if one wishes to query the rigor of others'
work against the benchmark of empirically-verified facts, one really should take
the trouble to get those facts right. In this respect you may wish to
reconsider your statement in your previous last email:"<FONT color=#000000
size=3 face="Times New Roman">The detected photons always have either spin 1/2
or spin -1/2.</FONT>"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I have other things to do than to
pick out your errors, but I will address your other points in your previous
email shortly. I hope you find this constructive criticism
useful.</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> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </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; 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> Monday, January 23, 2017 4:41
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: On particle radius &
spin</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hello Grahame,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> If I have attributed to you any statements that are the
reverse of what you have actually said, then I do sincerely apologize. I don't
remember your using the relativistic electron’s photon wavelength h/(gamma mc)
in your electron model prior to me mentioning it or using it in my work. But
if you did I either missed it or forgot it, and would appreciate your pointing
out to me an example where and when you did, since you know where and I don't.
I am in the process of critiquing your electron model as I have critiqued John
and Martin’s, Vivian’s, Chip’s and Albrecht's in the past, as they are all
double-looping models with some similarities to mine. I think all of us want
to be fair-minded in our critiques. If your model stands up to all the
scrutiny that we can apply to it, that will be great. If we were to give you
or anyone here a “free ride” on possibly questionable issues, we would not be
doing our duty to the scientific research process and this could slow down
progress towards better models. So there’s nothing personal going on here. I
would not like to waste my own time for months or years thinking I had a good
scientific model if it was really full of mathematical and/or conceptual
errors and was a dead end. And such errors, if they exist, come out sooner or
later anyway (less embarrassing if they come out sooner rather than later)
unless no one cares enough to notice them and point them out. My own photon
and electron models have evolved over the past 25 or more years starting with
some initial insights, and I’m sure they will continue to evolve.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> As for your website and online physics teaching, I was at
one point wondering, after looking over your site, if you were including your
own metaphysical approach and physical hypotheses in your online physics
instruction, which seemed directed towards physics newcomers. You assured me
that you were not. So I dropped the subject. I would not call any of this
“hurling brickbats” but I understand that you could have taken my comments in
a different way than I intended. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>with best wishes,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Richard</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Jan 21, 2017, at 3:12 PM, 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">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Oh
Richard,<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>I really
do wonder sometimes about your lines of reasoning.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>And ‘disconfirm’ ?? – I
didn’t even know that was a word!<SPAN> P</SPAN>oor old Occam must be
spinning in his grave!<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>What with ‘disprove’,
‘refute’, ‘rebut’ – ‘disconfirm’ must surely be a case of “multiplying
entities (words) beyond necessity”.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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> <SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>In
this you appear to be dealing with the de Broglie Clock Paradox by
completely ignoring it.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>As
photon energy increases by factor gamma then cycle frequency decreases by
factor 1/gamma.<SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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"
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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>[My model of particle
structure proposes that this is in fact the<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>reason</I><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Observation and theory match
perfectly.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN><B>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><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>(and fully in line
with theory and experimental evidence, as I’ve shown
above).<SPAN> <SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Even Wikipedia, with all its
failings, appears to have this one right.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><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></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Best,<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Grahame<O:P></O:P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,128) 2px solid; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"
type="cite">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(228,228,228); FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A title=richgauthier@gmail.com
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A title=grahame@starweave.com
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</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 style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:09
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>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><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<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>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)<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>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><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>